Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Building Society Holdings (Information)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if building societies who are required to supply details of individual holdings in their societies to the Inland Revenue are made aware that the information, supplied for averaging purposes, can be and is used for the purpose of checking individual holdings, and can lead to prosecutions against members.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I believe that building societies are aware of the use made of this information.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that very few members of building societies or depositors are aware of it? If this information is to be obtained, ought it not to be obtained, not in this underhanded way, but under Section 29 of the 1952 Act?

Mr. MacDermot: In fact, very much wider information could be obtained under Section 29. There is nothing underhand about the way this information is obtained. It is quite well known that

returns have to be made in order to determine the composite rate. When the information is obtained, it has to be linked with the particular taxpayer's individual file for purposes of calculating the rate. If it is found that the taxpayer has not disclosed some of his income, it is the duty of the Revenue to investigate it.

Mr. Shepherd: Would it not be more equitable if this applied to all taxpayers who have money in building societies and not those who happen to be the victims of the particular sample?

Mr. MacDermot: The object of the exercise is not to obtain information about non-disclosure, but if such information comes to light then it is the duty of the Revenue to investigate it.

National Savings

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the progress made in his consideration of the establishment of a State-run unit trust.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I am not yet ready to add to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 15th December, 1964.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he is speeding up his investigation of this important problem? Does he appreciate that the small saver is very anxious to participate in this kind of scheme, particularly if the shares are for sale at post offices in small units of 5s., 2s. 6d., or even 1s.?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I am much obliged. I am going into this with very great care and a great deal of information has been made available to us. I should prefer not to make a statement yet.

Mr. William Clark: If a national unit trust is brought into being, will the Chancellor confirm that no undue advantage will be given to it as opposed to private trusts?

Mr. Callaghan: I think it is far too early to start talking in that way. I should have thought that the hon.


Gentleman would have welcomed the imaginative ideas coming from both sides of the House on this matter.

Export Rebates

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that German exports receive a rebate of the order of 5 per cent. to 6 per cert. of factor costs in relation to their turnover tax; and whether, in view of the fact that present taxation in the United Kingdom is estimated to amount to about 14·3 per cent. of the factor costs of British industry, he will increase the present export rebate for export goods.

Mr. Callaghan: A comparison cannot be made in this form, as the different rebates reflect entirely different systems of taxation.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: That may be so, but would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that it shows that a very real advantage is obtained by German exporters and exporters in other countries which have a similar system over British exporters? There is a very big differential here. Would he look again at this problem and see if something can be done in the forthcoming Budget to lessen the differential?

Mr. Callaghan: As it is impossible to compare like with unlike, I cannot be as dogmatic as the hon. Gentleman is about this. If he and I have had access to the same sources of information—and I think that we have—then I think that much of the information he has read would be challenged if it were exposed to examination.

Rating Assessments

Mr. Higgins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to ensure that all forms of residential property are valued on a comparative basis for rating purposes.

Mr. MacDermot: All forms of residential property are required by law to be assessed on the same basis, namely the rent which the property may reasonably be expected to fetch.

Mr. Higgins: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as a result of recent decisions by the Lands Tribunal, the link between different forms of residential

property is becoming extremely tenuous? Does he agree that the only evidence allowed normally is in respect of the same sort of residential property and that it only extends to a general comparison if the first kind of evidence is not adequate? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the evidence for flats which is taken into account in my constituency does not take due regard of the fact that 600 or more flats are unoccupied?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not think that there is anything new in the decisions of the Lands Tribunal. They merely confirm what has long been recognised to be the basis of assessment. This basis is being considered in the Government's review of local government finance, including the rating system.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say when that review will be completed?

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my hon. and learned Friend convinced that there are no discrepancies between different regions in the valuation of property?

Mr. MacDermot: The object of bringing rating assessments under the Inland Revenue Department was to obtain greater uniformity between regions. This is not easy to achieve, but generally the Department is satisfied that it is achieving it, and the results of appeals to the Lands Tribunal would seem to confirm that.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the capital value of a property reflects the discounted value of its future rents, he will take steps to allow selling prices to be used as a check on estimates of notional rents calculated for valuation purposes.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir; the law requires rating assessments to be based on the rental value of the property, and not on its capital value.

Mr. Higgins: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider making this sort of comparison in the review into the rating system which is taking place in view of the discrepancies between the ratios of selling price and the notional rent?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. That will be considered in the review.

Mr. Dell: Is it not true that if the basis suggested by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) were adopted it would result in the rating system being a great deal less regressive than it is at the moment?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, but the argument the other way, which is sometimes ignored, is that capital values are very often an unreliable guide to rental values and would not necessarily themselves be a satisfactory basis either.

Invisible Exports

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to improve invisible earnings.

Mr. Tinn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he now proposes to encourage the growth of invisible exports.

Mr. Callaghan: So-called invisible earnings cover a wide range of activities, and form a valuable contribution to our balance of payments. Government policy is continually directed to securing the best possible return from them.

Mr. Walker: In view of the fact that 35 per cent. of these earnings come under this category, would the right hon. Gentleman consider other ways of giving tax incentives to the industries concerned, and will he see that they have representation on the various dollar-export councils?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I will look into this.
Export rebates are valuable in many fields, but there is a difficulty about extending them to service industries for reasons which I am sure are apparent to the hon. Gentleman. But invisibles provide an important part of our earnings and I will certainly do all I can. If the hon. Member has particular suggestions about particular services, I should be glad to consider them.

Mr. Tinn: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the contrast between the deficit on invisible earnings of £20 million in the privately-owned shipping industry and the contribution made by the largely

publicly-owned civil aviation industry of a surplus of £25 million?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. It is noticeable that the earnings of shipping have gone down. To some extent this is due to the level of world trade. An improvement in world trade will bring an increase in the level of shipping earnings as soon as it starts to pick up.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the problems of the shipping industry, which are considerable, particularly with regard to capital? Will he do his best to restore the balance of £100 million a year which we used to have and which has now dwindled to nothing?

Mr. Callaghan: This is a problem which has afflicted many Governments for many years. The growth in nationalism in shipping is bound to militate against the earnings which we enjoyed from the shipping services before the First World War.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce a scheme to extend export rebates to invisible exports, including ship-repair work.

Mr. MacDermot: I have carefully considered the hon. Lady's suggestion which, as I think she knows, would require legislation; but there are great practical difficulties in the way of accepting it.

Dame Irene Ward: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that ship-repairing for foreign owners has always been regarded as an export? When the ship repairers' representatives went to see the Treasury officials, they were given a friendly reception and were of the opinion that after an examination their invisible exports would be treated in the same way as the exports of people regarded as exporters. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman do better than appears from his Answer to be the case?

Mr. MacDermot: We always try to give people a friendly reception at the Treasury. Ship-repairing could not be considered in isolation from other forms of invisible exports. As I have said, there are difficulties about applying the scheme to invisible exports and I think that we must wait to see how the scheme works


out in practice for a period before we consider how we can extend it.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the worldwide reputation of this country for ship-repairing, and will he keep in touch with the Shipbuilding Conference to see whether something can be done about this matter?

Mr. MacDermot: Certainly. I shall be glad to consider any specific suggestions which may be made.

Mr. Tinn: Has my hon. and learned Friend noticed the improvement in shipbuilding which has already resulted from the steps taken by the President of the Board of Trade to improve credit facilities?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes. We try to help by many different ways, but we cannot find an answer to every problem by one means.

Capital Gains Tax

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether capital gains tax will fall on farm stock and working capital on every change of farm, whether owned or tenanted, by a farmer.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt from his proposed capital gains tax gains which are made on works of art originally purchased from the artist.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take into account when preparing his new capital gains tax that the financial returns of small woodland owners come from infrequent sales of timber and that, averaged over a period of years, such returns do not exceed 3 per cent. per annum on the capital represented by their woodlands.

Mr. MacDermot: I have noted the points which the hon. Gentlemen make, but I must ask them to await my right hon. Friend's legislative proposals.

Mr. Digby: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that there are many young farmers whose ambition it is to move to a larger farm and that there are far too few farms becoming vacant? Even if another farm became available,

is he aware that if this tax falls heavily on a young man before he moves he will be tempted to stay in the smaller farm?

Mr. MacDermot: I will take note of that point.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend has anticipated his Budget statement on a capital gains tax and will he not go a little way to meet the point in my Question No. 15? Is he aware that it this concession is not granted irreparable harm will be done to artists, painters and sculptors? Will he look at the problem seriously to see whether he cannot make a concession?

Mr. MacDermot: I cannot say more about my right hon. Friend's Budget statement, but I will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Barnett: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that at present Income Tax and Surtax are charged on increases in farm stock and working capital on charges being made and that to discriminate in this way by a capital gains tax could well lead to a situation in which there could be the evasion which we had before farms were assessed under Schedule D?

Mr. MacDermot: It is for those sorts of reasons that we are proposing to introduce the tax.

Mr. Prior: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is a serious point? Is he having consultations with the National Farmers' Union and other organisations concerned with farming and the countryside about the imposition of this tax?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. We are having representations from many organisations. We are glad to receive and consider any such representations.

Decimal Currency

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the decimalisation of the currency; and whether he will introduce legislation to implement this reform.

Mr. Bessell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now


make a statement regarding Her Majesty's Government's policy on the introduction of a decimal coinage system.

Mr. Callaghan: I regret that the Government are not yet in a position to make a statement on the possible introduction of a decimal currency.

Mr. Jenkin: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is an inevitable reform and that the sooner it is made the better?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that it is a desirable reform, but we have to weigh against it the cost of introduction and the time of the introduction. In addition, there was not complete agreement on the Halsbury Committee about the method which should be employed. Therefore, I think that we would do better to take a little longer to consider all these issues properly before we take any steps.

Mr. Sharples: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties caused to manufacturers of cash registers and business machines by the uncertainty of the position one way or the other?

Mr. Callaghan: I would be sorry if this were so, and it clearly means that the Government should make up their mind on the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It does no lie in the mouth of anybody opposite who is saying "Hear, hear" to ask us to make up our mind yet.

Mr. Maxwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any further delay in announcing our adoption of these changes is harmful to our export drive and that British industry generally is anxious to know where the Government stand? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I should be glad of an assurance that he will brook no delay on this matter?

Mr. Callaghan: I give that assurance.

Paymaster-General

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the main activities of the Department of the Paymaster-General for the past three months; what is its present staff; and whether it is adequate for the purposes involved.

Mr. Callaghan: While carrying on its normal banking and pension-paying services, the Department has been completing the first stage of its dispersal to Crawley New Town and planning the introduction of a computer system, to be installed at Crawley. Staff in post number 629, against a complement of 653; subject to the filling of vacancies, the staffing provision is adequate.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 629 people seem to help the Paymaster-General to do precisely nothing? Is he aware that the Paymaster-General has earned £1,830 since 16th October? Is he aware that he has answered only six Questions in the House, which come out at £305 per Question? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this man is giving value for money? Do we not deserve better value for it?

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General's office acts as a banker for most Government Departments and pays more than 400,000 public service pensions to teachers, civil servants, National Health Service pensioners and the rest. As to the work of my right hon. Friend, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need be so nervous. Unless he has something which he is anxious to hide, I can assure him that my right hon. Friend's eagle eye will not fall on him.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Paymaster-General is worth a score of hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Callaghan: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that he is probably worth many more than that.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask for your guidance. Is it permissible for an hon. Member to refer to the Paymaster-General as "this man" and not as "the right hon. Gentleman"?

Mr. Speaker: No; it is a breach of the courtesies, but I did not hear it. Let us get on. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor had answered.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that an adequate return is being achieved


on the capital invested in the nationalised industries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: Nationalised industries are expected to earn a reasonable rate of return on capital invested in them. I am satisfied that their financial objectives take this requirement into account.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does the Chancellor think it right that there has been a price rise of 150 per cent. on certain season tickets in the past ten years in spite of the investment of £1,200 million in British Railways in the same period?

Mr. Callaghan: What has always to be remembered about the nationalised industries, especially the railways and coal, is that they are not capital intensive. Any general increase in wage rates must be reflected to a very much greater extent in the railways than in a great many other industries, and rises in fares are bound to follow rises in wages of this sort.

Mr. Ogden: My right hon. Friend mentioned coal. Will he compare the increased productivity of the coal industry with that of private enterprise?

Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to say that the increase in productivity in the coal industry last year was over 6 per cent. and in 1962 it was over 8 per cent. These are very valuable assets.

Mr. Heath: Will the Chancellor confirm that he will be adopting the same targets as the previous Government did as regards the nationalised industries, and that this will extend to B.O.A.C. also for the writing off of the deficit and for the contingency allowance which he has agreed to make?

Mr. Callaghan: I answered a question in those terms about two months ago. That does not mean that I should not feel entirely free to review the basis of earnings in the industries, but the targets as targets are acceptable.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Tax Collection (Costs)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present cost of collecting taxes by the Government;

and what estimate he has made of the cost incurred by industry and others in assisting the Government in the collection of taxes.

Mr. MacDermot: In 1963–64, the costs of collecting the Inland Revenue duties, the Customs and Excise duties and the Motor Vehicles duties were £60·7 million, £24·8 million and £5·2 million, respectively. These figures include the relevant expenses incurred by other Departments. The answer to the second part of the Question is that no such estimate has been made.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is not this figure far too high, and does it not show the urgent necessity of not overburdening the tax collecting machinery? Will the Chancellor do everything he can to act accordingly?

Mr. MacDermot: If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions as to how we might collect our taxes more cheaply, I should be very glad to receive them.

Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received as a result of his decision to raise the interest rates of the Public Works Loan Board as from 20th January; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Callaghan: I have received three letters about this increase. In reply I have explained that only the rates for last-resort loans from the Public Works Loan Board were raised.

Mr. Digby: I recognise that the two-tier system gives some help, but will the Chancellor accept that people are not pleased, even if he has received only three letters, and will he give an undertaken that, when he is able to reduce the Bank Rate, there will be a reduction in this very high rate?

Mr. Callaghan: I was not pleased with having to raise the Bank Rate, but it was an essential part of the short-term defences which had to be raised. As to the level of Public Works Loan Board interest rates, I should be ready to review these at any time.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities are


extremely grateful for the improved availability of finance through the Public Works Loan Board?

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged. Perhaps I may add that, although in some quarters this has been dismissed as rather small help, over £90 million has been advanced in loans since November to about 290 authorities.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: But is not the Chancellor aware that this added access to the Public Works Loan Board is available only to boroughs and towns which are not borrowing more than £500,000 and that the vast majority of authorities in the larger boroughs are suffering because they have had no improved access to the Board and their rates of interest are vastly increased in contradiction of the promises of the party opposite before the election?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating Question No. 32, but, if he is impatient about a reduction in long-term interest rates, I can tell him that this Government still have four years and seven months of their life left to run.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his plans for transferring a larger part of the burden of public expenditure from the local authorities to the Exchequer.

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the present system of financing local government services; and whether he will now make a statement about his plans for transferring more of the growing burden of local government costs to new sources of finance.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are now Her Majesty's Government's plans for transferring part of the rate burden, particularly for education, to the taxpayer.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the considerable increase in rate demands this year, he will now reconsider his policy and transfer more of the cost of education to the National Exchequer.

Mrs. Thatcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will have completed his review of the rating system; and whether he will make a statement about that part of the review which has been considering what steps to take to overcome the disparity between rating valuations for houses and flats of similar accommodation.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will announce his plans for transferring a greater part of local government expenditure from the ratepayers to the Exchequer.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will make a statement on his plans for transferring the major portion of the burden of public expenditure from the local authorities to the Exchequer.

Mr. Callaghan: As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated in answer to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Sir J. Fletcher-Cooke) on 5th February, we have taken steps to intensify work on the review of local government finance. This is a complex subject and I cannot yet give a completion date.

Mr. Gilmour: A study of local government finance is very different from what the right hon. Gentleman's party promised at the General Election. Is he aware that, so far from diminishing the rate burden, the measures which he has taken have already increased it, and will he undertake at least to undo the damage which he himself has done?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that local authorities generally share the hon. Gentleman's view. I find that they are being extremely co-operative, because they recognise the complexities of a review of this kind covering not only grants but the sharing of the burden between central and local government and the means of raising revenue. These are complex matters and the local authorities are helping us to investigate them very thoroughly.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that between 1955 and 1963 the rate burden in this country actually doubled and that this highly regressive and unfair form of taxation is now our most steeply rising form of taxation?


Will he act with urgency in this matter, particularly as it has been reliably calculated that the rate burden in, for example, the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne will double in the next nine years?

Mr. Callaghan: It has been evident to the House and the country for some time that the level of the rate burden will continue to rise as a result of the burdens which are imposed upon local authorities and the duties which they have to carry out. Although I cannot check in my head the figures which my hon. Friend gave, I must add that, in considering this question, we have to remember that ratepayers are also taxpayers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are they."] Sometimes they are the same people and sometimes they are not. Therefore, in reaching a conclusion on this problem, one has to consider where the burdens should rightly fall.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend remind hon. Members opposite that, in urging the transfer of the burden from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, they must keep carefully in mind that it always happens that he who pays the piper calls the tune?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a consideration in the minds of many local authorities which are now deriving more than half their revenue from the central Government.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a good deal of the concern among local authorities about the rate burden is directed against the general grant introduced by the previous Administration, which penalises progressive local authorities which want to expand their services and those which have experienced an increase in their population? Will he, therefore, see that this burden is removed from local authorities after he has completed his review?

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has already said in this connection that he will be reviewing the whole subject of the general grant.

Mr. Costain: The Allen Report shows injustice to elderly people on the question of the rate burden. Will the Chancellor give further consideration to overcoming this difficulty at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Callaghan: This is one of the aspects of the rating problem which must be considered very seriously and sympathetically, because there is a great deal of feeling about the more elderly people in our population. But we must be allowed to take time to examine the question properly and reach sound conclusions about it.

Mr. Park: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that both local and national taxation ought to be related to income and that the present rating system needs very much to be changed and improved in this respect?

Mr. Callaghan: As a general principle, I accept that taxation is best when it is related to capacity to pay.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answers he is giving, careful and considered as they are, imply that he and the Government are examining this problem entirely afresh, whereas he and his party gave a clear undertaking at the election that they would make early transfer of expenditure from the local authorities to the central Government? Would it not have been more honest to the electorate if the party opposite had said that they would make an inquiry instead of giving a definite pledge?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would have equally complained if, having got the evidence which is becoming available, we did not examine it before reaching conclusions.

National Insurance and Income Tax

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much will be paid in Income Tax and National Insurance contributions in a fully year by a married man with no children earning £18 per week in 1964–65 and 1965–66, respectively.

Mr. MacDermot: £163 13s. 10d. in 1964–65 and £170 18s. 10d. in 1965–66 if his employer had not contracted out of the graduated scheme of National Insurance and £150 0s. 10d. and £157 5s. 10d., respectively, if his employer had contracted out.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this figure is the average wage? Is he further aware that our forecast that the Socialist Government


would mean increased taxation to the average man has been amply borne out by these events? Will he apologise to the country for having misled it?

Mr. MacDermot: If hon. Members opposite had forecast the balance of payments situation they were to bequeath to us we might have been able to warn the taxpayers of the measures we would have to take in order to deal with the situation.

Mr. Duffy: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, although £18 may be the average wage, a married man with two children has to earn £25 a week before he is affected to some extent?

Mr. MacDermot: That is quite right. A married man without children does not begin to pay additional Income Tax as a result of the last Budget until he is earning nearly £15 a week.

Scottish Bank Notes

Dr. Miller: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to make more widely known in commercial circles the fact that Scottish banknotes of every denomination are legal tender in all areas of the United Kingdom and should be accepted without demur.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. Scottish bank notes are not in fact legal tender anywhere in the United Kingdom, although I believe that in practice they are fairly generally accepted in both England and Wales as well as Scotland.

Dr. Miller: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that if this were more widely known in Scotland it might precipitate or provoke a rebellion the scale of which would be very much in excess of that which happened in 1745 because of the extent of the infiltration into England since that time? Will he take steps to see that these notes are made legal tender all over the country?

Mr. MacDermot: There would be difficulties about that as there are at least 20 different kinds of Scottish bank note. As for Scotland itself, if my hon. Friend knows of any case of a Scotsman refusing a bank note I would be glad to hear of it.

Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in recent weeks, owing to the attractive nature of the Scottish bank notes and the great reputation

for stability which Scottish banking has, I was offered and accepted a guinea for a Scottish bank note? Will he encourage this reaction?

Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Non-Residents (Income Tax)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the practice of the Inland Revenue, under Section 29(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1952, with regard to the raising of assessments on income derived by non-residents from money invested in banks and other financial institutions which do not deduct Income Tax at source.

Mr. Callaghan: In some cases this interest is exempted from United Kingdom tax under double taxation agreements between the United Kingdom and other countries. Where this is not the case there would usually be no way of enforcing collection of tax on interest assessed on non-residents and it is not, therefore, the general practice of the Inland Revenue to raise assessments on such interest.

Mr. Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a case brought to my notice the working of this Section of the Act actively discourages investment from abroad? As this is clearly not his intention, will he take steps to introduce amending legislation?

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to send me details of that illustration. Since he put down his Question, I have been into this with great care and I did not find this Section to have the effect he describes.

Housekeeper Allowance

Mr. Maxwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a single person cannot claim tax relief for a dependent female relative or non-relative residing with the taxpayer; and whether he will allow such taxpayers to claim relief.

Mr. MacDermot: I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind a claim to the housekeeper allowance. If so, the reason for which he asks is that the Income Tax


Acts do not in general provide for relief for domestic assistance. On the second part of his Question, I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the Question from the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) on 10th November last.

Mr. Maxwell: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to remove the distinction between widows and widowers and single persons? In the interests of sex equality, will he allow a claim where submitted on behalf of a female or male relative or housekeeper of either sex?

Mr. MacDermot: The position of the widow or widower has, as I indicated, in the answer to which I referred, for long been recognised as being something of an anomaly and it has never been thought right to extend it. No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that there are certain circumstances in which a single person can claim dependent relative allowances or housekeeper allowances for resident child minders.

Mr. Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to enable a widowed taxpayer's non-resident housekeeper to qualify for tax relief.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Mr. Baker: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the non-allowance for widows acts to the detriment of hardworking women who are trying to do their best for their children? Will he not ask his right hon. Friend to have another look at this matter to see whether he can help these unfortunate people?

Mr. MacDermot: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have another look at it. As I said earlier, the position of widows and widowers without young children is already considered to be anomalous in our tax law. If the widowed taxpayer has a child resident with him or her, in certain circumstances he may claim an extra allowance of £40 under Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1960.

Mr. Baker: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman get his right hon. Friend to take action about this very serious matter in the next Budget?

Mr. MacDermot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

Older Persons

Mr. McBride: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost, in a full year, of granting complete remission of Income Tax to all persons still employed in industry, who are aged 70 years and over, and 75 years and over, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacDermot: I regret this information is not available and I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. McBride: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this is one of the aims of the old age pensioners' associations? Is he further aware that it would be highly desirable to give this concession to people who are still making a contribution to the economic life of the country?

Mr. MacDermot: Although no precise figures are available it would prove more expensive than most people realise, but we will be glad to consider any representations on the subject.

Retirement Pensioners

Mr. McBride: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost, in a full year, of granting complete remission of income tax to all retirement pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacDermot: About £230 million. My right hon. Friend could not accept this proposal which would give no benefit to those most in need.

Home Market

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the evidence against export subsidies, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Louth, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to tighten the home market; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: The Government's policy is to secure a redeployment of our


national resources that will encourage exports, save imports and maintain full employment.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the Chancellor aware that both the Governor of the Bank of England and leading industrialists who are most exercised with the export markets agree that export subsidies will not help our balance of trade? Does not he agree that curtailing the home market is the best way to put our balance of payments right?

Mr. Callaghan: There have been no export subsidies so far. What the Government have done is to rebate some of the indirect taxes paid by exporters. I am not quite sure, in considering the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, whether he is calling for a substantial and severe deflation of the economy.

Mr. Dell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the car manufacturers, who have long been among our most successful exporters, have always insisted upon the importance of high home demand in order to stimulate exports?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, that is so. They have done well in exports. I regret that there was a falling off last year because of the tightening of overseas markets, but I hope that their exports will go up again this year.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was not asking for severe deflation at home but that the nation should be made to live within its means. The best way to do that is to curtail the home market so that exporters could have a high home demand.

Mr. Callaghan: Of course the nation must live within its means. That is the phrase that I have used on several occasions. But, in our view, the best way of doing that is not to create unemployment at home.

Sir C. Osborne: I am not advocating that.

Mr. Callaghan: The lessening of home demand must have such a consequential effect. We believe that the right way to redeploy our resources, and that is the task we are engaged upon.

Public Expenditure

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the statement by the Governor of the Bank of England that a marked cut in public expenditure was necessary to prevent another sterling crisis, and that civil estimates have risen from £4,304 million to £7,388 million in the last 10 years, if he will appoint an independent committee to investigate and recommend where cuts could be made; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.

Sir C. Osborne: Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that some local authorities are having to pay as much as 9 per cent. on temporary loans, which will put up their housing costs enormously? Will he promise the country that at least he will reduce the 7 per cent. Bank Rate within the next six months?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that an independent committee to investigate and recommend where cuts could be made is likely to help local authorities who are asking for more access to the Public Works Loan Board.

Sir C. Osborne: If the right hon. Gentleman will not exercise this power, surely he should get someone from outside to help him to do the job.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that what he is asking for is that local authorities should have more access to public funds, which the Exchequer would have to carry below the line, so that it would have to borrow more from the money market.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will produce a new White Paper on Public Expenditure to replace that produced in December 1963, Command Paper No. 2235.

Mr. Callaghan: It is my intention to present a further White Paper on Public Expenditure later in the year.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give very great satisfaction in view of the gross deception incorporated in the previous Government's White Paper? In reference


to the figures in paragraph 12 of that White Paper, in which there are 14 items ranging from defence to administrative and other services, can my right hon. Friend give me one of those figures which is accurate?

Mr. Callaghan: I regret to say that I have not checked those figures. I have been so occupied trying to reduce public expenditure to some form of order out of the chaos in which we found it. What I can do is give my hon. Friend a guarantee that when we produce our figures later in the year, they will at least be realistic and related to what the economy can stand.

Personal Savings

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of personal income was saved in each of the last three years; and what steps he is taking to maintain or increase that proportion.

Mr. Callaghan: Personal savings are estimated to have been 9·1 per cent., 8 per cent. and 8·6 per cent. of personal disposable income in 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively. Estimates for 1964 are not yet available. The Government are anxious to increase the level of savings, and I am at present considering a number of ideas in this field.

Mr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital to maintain the rising trend in savings, which has been such a feature of the last thirteen years? In considering suggestions for stimulating savings, will he be very chary of adopting any suggestions on the lines of the compulsory savings levy which, at the suggestion of one of his present advisers, was incorporated into the 1962 Budget for British Guiana, with such disastrous results?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know of any proposals of this sort. Of course, certain proposals were left behind by the previous Administration, for example, for contractual savings schemes. These are being examined as well. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would equate them with the kind of plans he has in mind.

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER- SECRETARIES OF STATE FOR DEFENCE

Mr. Farr: asked the Prime Minister if, in the interest of clarity and brevity, he will rename the posts occupied by those Ministers who are Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Defence for the Services.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.

Mr. Farr: Can I remind the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that in the phrase—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—"The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force"—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—there are no fewer than 13—[Interruption.] Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—whether he is aware that in the phrase, "The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force" there are no fewer than 13 words? Can he suggest some suitable form of abbreviation or consolidation, so that in future an easier reference may be made to this Minister?

The Prime Minister: We are capable of counting to two. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is the right convention, I think, that Secretaries of State should have to assist them Under-Secretaries of State, and if we were to depart from what I believe to be the correct decision of the previous Government in this matter that might give a handle to those who may be hopeful that the process of integration and functionalisation will not proceed. I am sure that any Under-Secretary in any Service Department will have a much shorter and more affectionate title by which he is known to all concerned.

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

Mr. Farr: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the setting up of a Parliament of Commonwealth Nations.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary is considering how we might arrange to


bring together a Commonwealth Parliamentary assembly. I promised last week to keep this topic in mind as a possible subject for discussion at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unlike some of the promises in his party's election manifesto, this undertaking received considerable support on both sides of the House and in the Commonwealth? Can he assure the House that this is not to be yet another broken party promise?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has had his fun, but I take it that he really wants to deal with the specific issue. This proposal was first made in the debate on Commonwealth affairs on 6th February, last year, and I have indicated that we take it very seriously. If we can get general Commonwealth backing for it, we hope to make progress with it.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there already exists a worldwide, all-party association of Parliamentarians which meets annually in conference, with national delegations which are led by important Ministers? Before coming to any final decisions on this matter, therefore, will he consult the United Kingdom branch of that association of which he himself is chairman?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. All of us are well aware of the valuable work done by the C.P.A. and, if I may say so, of the hard work of the hon. Gentleman and others in this connection. However, I think that it would be true that in the European area the work of the Strasbourg Assembly has gone much further in the matter of bringing Parliamentarians together than we have succeeded in doing for the Commonwealth. Therefore, while I agree with proceeding in harmony with those who are able to take part in the C.P.A., it would be good if we could see how we could develop this work.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Would not the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference which is coming in the summer be a good opportunity to discuss this further, perhaps after taking a decision about the Commonwealth secretariat?

The Prime Minister: I promised on 2nd March, and the right hon. Gentleman will recall what I said a moment ago, to keep this topic in mind as a possible subject for discussion at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers which, I think, is what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Chapman: Following what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) said, would my right hon. Friend note that last year the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association decided that this year's conference would be a much longer conference, with background papers, moving towards the idea of a Parliament of the Commonwealth? Would my right hon. Friend, therefore, be very careful to have a look at this extended form of C.P.A. annual conference to see whether it meets the sort of thing which he has in mind?

The Prime Minister: I think that we are all moving in the right direction. It is right that there should be consultations to see that the proposed Parliamentary Assembly meets what all of us have in mind.

VIETNAM

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to meet President Johnson in order to discuss the situation in South-East Asia.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether he will associate himself with President de Gaulle's approach to the Soviet Prime Minister, with a view to a joint initiative for ending the war in Vietnam through a conference of the powers which met at Geneva in 1954 and 1962 in order to make peace in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about the diplomatic consultations on the situation in Vietnam on which he has been engaged.

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek a meeting with President Johnson in order to concert policies towards South-East Asia.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Prime Minister what steps are now being taken by Her Majesty's Government to seek a peaceful settlement in Vietnam; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: As I told the House before, what would stop the fighting would be a proper observance of the 1954 Geneva Agreements, thus putting an end to the aggression by the North against South Vietnam. As the House knows, we have in our traditional rôle as Co-Chairman been engaged in diplomatic consultations of a confidential nature. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that if there is genuine cessation of hostilities, then talks in some form should be started. But for the moment the form is of less account than the bask of talks. Our own diplomatic efforts have been directed to seeing if this basis exists. As I have already told the House, we have been in touch with the Soviet Government, who were given our views on this problem on 20th February. We are now awaiting their reply and will maintain contact through the diplomatic channel as well as taking the opportunity for further discussions which will, I hope, be afforded by Mr. Gromyko's visit to London next week.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be paying a visit to Washington on 22nd and 23rd March, when Vietnam will be among the subjects discussed, though this is not the specific purpose of the meeting.
Meanwhile, we will continue our diplomatic consultations with a view to achieving a peaceful solution which stands some chance of assuring a lasting genuine settlement. The House will not expect me to say more.

Mr. Campbell: I thank the Prime Minister for making that statement about the diplomatic position. Can he give an assurance that the Government are supporting the United States Government in the action which they have taken in their commitment to assist South Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: I have dealt with this situation on a number of occasions. I have said that, as we all recognise, if the 1954 Agreement were honoured in full there would be no problem, and it is certainly the case—I think that this needs to be understood—that the United States have in fact offered to withdraw American military forces from Vietnam in the event of a prompt and assured cessation of aggression by Hanoi.

Mr. Zilliacus: While adding my thanks to my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he has read the majority Report of the International Supervisory Commission pointing out that American attacks on North Vietnam constitute a violation of the 1954 agreements, or rather of the American undertaking to do nothing by force to upset those agreements? Does he recall that on 5th March and 30th June last year he himself urged the then Prime Minister to make it clear that we opposed the extension of the war to North Vietnam? Finally, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the course outlined in my Question No. Q6 is being urged on him by a large number of his followers in this House, by the Liberal Party, by the Transport and General Workers' Union, by the National Union of Railwaymen and by an influential section of the Press? Will he not take action in that sense?

The Prime Minister: First, I have read the majority Report of the Control Commission and the minority Report. To get a good balanced view, I think that one needs to read both. I well remember the occasions when I put across the Floor of the House to the Leader of the Opposition the proposition which my hon. Friend has not incorrectly quoted. But there has been a substantial change in the past few weeks, not of degree but of kind.
A year ago, the general supposition was that the fighting in South Vietnam was a spontaneous, so-called nationalist rising on the part of the Viet Cong people. But now there is no attempt at all to deny the responsibility of North Vietnam who have said that they are fighting a war in South Vietnam. That makes a very big difference, I think, in terms of our analysis of the problem. We have never sought to see the war extended. I still think it right—I have just quoted what Mr. Adlai Stevenson said—that if there were clear evidence of a cessation of the aggression by North Vietnam the United States are prepared to take their troops out. The other thing which my hon. Friend has in mind would then automatically follow.

Mr. Kershaw: Irrespective of the advice which the Prime Minister may be receiving from the Transport and General


Workers' Union, and presumably from the unpaid general secretary, will be bear in mind that the vast majority of the House very much welcomes his Answer this afternoon? Will he bear in mind that appeasement is not the way to get a solution in Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: I am not, frankly, in need of compliments from the hon. Gentleman. I think that the issue which we are dealing with this afternoon is too serious for the kind of low-level tomfoolery which he likes to indulge in.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Kershaw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not make my voice heard. Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing anxiety in this country at constant and continual reports both in the American and British Press suggesting that our Government have not taken sufficient action in relation to initiatives in this direction because of certain commitments which we have entered into with the United States Government? Would he repudiate these suggestions?

The Prime Minister: If there is one thing on which, perhaps, I disagree with my hon. Friend it is his assumption that the anxieties to which he refers are not shared by every hon. and right hon. Member on both sides of the House and certainly by the Government. Of course, we understand when hon. Members sign Motions, but it should not be assumed that, when hon. Members go to sleep at night, their cheeks suffused with that virtue which affects all of us when we have signed Motions—I have signed many Motions—there are not some people staying up long into the night on the telephone trying to achieve the very objective which, I am sure, was the main purpose of those who signed the Motion.

Mr. Grimond: While appreciating the position of the Government, and without casting any doubt on the motives of the Americans in South Vietnam, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that it is not only in this country but in very respectable circles in America itself that there is widespread anxiety about the end of the present operation? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he

has received from the Americans any indication about whether they think that the present operation will help towards the resumption of conversations which he himself said is so desirable?
Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any prospect of getting political stability in South Vietnam, because unless the people of South Vietnam are enlisted in defence of their own freedom, and unless we get some form of reasonably stable administration in South Vietnam, we appear to be in danger of sinking into an absolutely bottomless bog?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The anxieties which he has expressed are expressed very widely in many parts of the world—in this country and in many others, as he has said. I think that I am interpreting him right when I say that I do not think it will help particularly to start examining motives. We are more interested in getting results than examining motives or doing any sort of analysis of that kind.
With regard to the essential need for effective civil administration in South Vietnam—and there has been a great deal of political instability there—I would much agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. But we must recognise that it is not conducive to political stability of any kind if people are not allowed to go about their daily work and on their farms, especially in the villages, because of this continued violence.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister bear in mind that in the last few weeks there has been a dangerous escalation in the military operations which may threaten the peace of the world and that in any action which his Government can take in accord with Russia, France, Canada or anybody else, the vast majority of the people will give him support, since they agree with the view of the Secretary-General of the United Nations that no settlement can come from further fighting and that a cease-fire is urgently required?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has throughout this very difficult problem expressed the anxieties which he and so many feel in a restrained and constructive way. When he referred just now to escalation, I think that he was


referring to what I had in mind when I said that the events of the past few weeks represent not merely an intensification in the degree of fighting, but a difference in kind—a difference in kind which results from the now quite clear commitment on the part of the North Vietnamese Government to perpetuate this war in South Vietnam, taking it out of the concept of a civil war, and the response which has inevitably followed that disclosure and that determination. That is why I think that my right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that this carries with it very grave dangers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think we should get on.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. Maxwell: (by Private Novice) asked Mr. Speaker whether he will make inquiries into the circumstances in which the word "detached", in the daily edition of HANSARD recording the speech of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) on 26th February, 1964, was altered to "attached" in the Bound Volume.

Mr. Speaker: As soon as I read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee yesterday, I made my own inquiries. The facts are these. What the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) in fact said was "attached". The daily report of HANSARD reported that as "detached". When attention on behalf of the right hon. Member was drawn to the error, I cannot tell the House with complete precision what happened, for no more mysterious reason than that the Editor could not now commit his personal memory.
What the Editor normally does in such circumstances is to send for the reporter and his note and to check with that. That is what he would suppose he did in the normal course. Whether he did so, he could not swear now, because it might obviously appear to be a mishearing of the most minimal kind.
I can tell the hon. Member that the correction was certainly properly made, because last night, when the hon. Member was good enough to raise the matter,

searches were made, the original shorthand note was found and it clearly records the word "attached" in respect of which the correction was made.
I owe the House an apology, because the OFFICIAL REPORT is within my care. But it is not possible now to say how the error arose. Whether it was that the reporter dictated his own script wrongly, whether the typist misheard him, whether the typist mistyped, or whether the printer got it wrong, one really cannot tell. I know, however, that the House will accept in general the view that the prodigious degree of accuracy attained by the OFFICIAL REPORT justifies our confidence in it.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Maxwell: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, for your answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] Would you not further, perhaps, agree to consider the rules of HANSARD in connection with these changes, having regard to the fact that there are many technical terms the precise meaning of which it is difficult for the Editor to know and that hon. Members who desire to make changes of this nature ought surely to follow the usual procedure of the House?

Mr. Speaker: There are two points there. HANSARD being my responsibility, I would say that if anybody has a concrete suggestion for the improvement of our doings, I would gladly personally consider it, wholly without commitment.
The rule as we work it is to be found on page 269 of the current edition of Erskine May. It is that a discretion rests in the Editor:
Verbal corrections are allowed to be made in the reports of speeches in the daily part for reproduction in the bound volume, but only if, in the opinion of the Editor, they do not alter substantially the meaning of anything that was said in the House.
As far as I know, that rule and entrusting the Editor with discretion has served us very well across the years and I suggest that we might safely continue it. I know that technical words are, perhaps, hard to hear, but one can trust the Editor, if he did not know the meaning of "dinoseb", DNOC, or one of those things, to refer the matter to me or otherwise to make inquiries.

Mr. Fisher: In view of what you have told the House, Mr. Speaker, would it


not be appropriate and suitable, and in accordance with our normal procedure, for the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) to make an apology?

Mr. Speaker: I did not finish answering; the fault is mine. What hon. Members ought to do when they discover an error, or what hon. Members ought to do when other Members think that they should apologise, cannot be a matter for me.

Mr. Hirst: It is a question of good manners.

Mr. Iremonger: Are you none the less aware, Mr. Speaker—as you were not yourself in the Chair, since the House was in Committee—that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) made it absolutely clear that he was imputing to my right hon. Friend a definite intention to mislead the House and that in those circumstances the matter should not be allowed to pass without a withdrawal?

Mr. Speaker: In the first place, it is not a matter for me. In the second place, had the Chair taken the view of what was said as indicated by the hon. Member, it would not have passed without query by the Chair. Therefore, I cannot accept that view. I dare say that it having been made perfectly clear that the correction was rightly made, the matter might be allowed to pass; but that is not for me.

Mr. Maxwell: rose—

Several Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Maxwell: I did not in any way impugn the honour of the right hon. Gentleman in question. All I said was that the former Administration had no objection to cooking the books as far as the defence of the realm was concerned.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am becoming too indulgent in my old age. This all represents a gross irregularity. When somebody wants to make a statement in personal explanation, there are procedures to be gone through. What happens now is: the Prime Minister: Statement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is not in order for the hon. Member to accuse the Front Bench and hon. Members on this side of cooking the books in matters of defence.

Mr. Speaker: I deprecate on all occasions the use by anybody of language of that kind, for the simple reason that it does not facilitate debate in a decent way. If I am asked whether it is in order, the distinction is this. To say that the right hon. Member or any other hon. Member had cooked the books would be out of order. To say it of a group of persons like a former Administration is different.

Dame Irene Ward: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House would like to get on with its business.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: rose—

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in the course of saying something, which was that I thought the House would like to get on with its business, and that in order that we might do so it was essential that there should not be so much noise that I could hear the point of order being addressed to me. Sir Rolf Dudley Williams.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Mr. Speaker, I was only going to say that I agree that we must accept remarks from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) which are foreign to the House, but he made a reflection on the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), and, that, whatever he says, that was the way in which his words were interpreted.

Mr. Speaker: If there was an objection to what the hon. Member said, it should have been raised with the Chair in Committee, and it was not. It is, therefore, not now a matter for me.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, would you allow me, as a point of order, to say that I do not take kindly—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Have I to accept that my Administration cooked


the books? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I do not accept that; I do not need to accept it.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Lady has to accept, or does not have to accept, is not a matter of order for me. I have to rule on matters of order on which I am asked to rule.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would it be in order for me to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the present Government are busy cooking all the books on which they can lay their hands?

Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order to raise a point of order on a hypothetical basis.

Later—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I wish to raise a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Ruling just now seemed to suggest that the remarks of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place any more, were directed not against any hon. or right hon. Gentleman individually, but collectively against this side of the House, and that, therefore, you could take no further action.
I should like to draw your attention to the words and to ask whether you could give further consideration to this matter either today or tomorrow. What the hon. Gentleman said was:
I do not want to kick the backside of the right hon. Member for Harrogate, but he and his hon. and right hon. Friends in the former Administration have been fully exposed in matters of national defence as a bunch of incompetent twerps, and, what is even worse, there is evidence that they cooked the books to suit their party instead of making sure that our country was adequately defended …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 72–73.]
My representation to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this is directly directed against my right hon. Friends and also directly against right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Therefore, I wondered whether you would be willing to reconsider the Ruling you gave, perhaps tomorrow.

Mr. Urwin: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with this point of order first.
What was said was said in Committee, when I was not in the Chair. I am not

criticising anybody else, but I cannot deal in any way with matters spoken in Committee. I am not in charge of order at that time, nor is there any form of appeal, as it were, if that be desired, from whoever was in the Chair in Committee to myself. It just cannot be done. I explained the rule in connection with what the hon. Member was supposed to have said this afternoon in my presence. I cannot go any further in the circumstances. I am not in charge of the Committee.

Sir J. Hobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you consider what was said this afternoon? The matter raised a direct complaint about what was said and done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). It was a question addressed to you and it related to his conduct in dealing with HANSARD and what was said in the House. When that had been properly cleared up, and the explanation given, the House expected, I think, an apology from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell). What he said was that it was just a general charge on the question of "cooking the books". Surely that general charge was based on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate was supposed to have said and done.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say that I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said here; it was, in fact, that he was making a general charge. I think that all this is entirely deplorable. I do not think that the House should spend its time abusing one another, or insulting one another; and I deprecate such language. But when challenged strictly on my duty on matters of order, that is the position. I cannot say that it is out of order.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not it solve all these problems, if my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) did say some things that were improper, if, instead of saying them in this House, he said them in the Spectator where, apparently, one can say anything with impunity?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is for me to rule upon the hypothetical circumstances of such an article being written. I think that the House would like soon to get on with its business.

Mr. Kershaw: If an hon. Member—in this case, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell)—gives a report to you, Sir, about something which has gone on in Committee which proves to be false, and misleads you as to the Ruling you have given, what redress have we got? You ruled this afternoon on what the hon. Member for Buckingham said from the bench opposite this afternoon. He did say last night something which was wholly unacceptable to the Committee and denied it this afternoon. Is not that very reprehensible conduct? Should not he be asked to apologise and should the matter not be referred to the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Speaker: No complaint of privilege can arise now in respect of something said last night, or in my presence this day, because it would be my job myself to draw attention to it if I thought that it arose. It is not for me to dictate how hon. Members should behave in a matter of apologising or not. I cannot add to what I have said.

Mr. Lubbock: Have you not, Mr. Speaker, frequently deprecated the practice of prolonging events in the House by raising bogus points of order? What defence have we against the Leader of the Opposition when he is guilty of this practice?

Mr. Speaker: I do not accept the proposition that it was a bogus point of order, which means that the hon. Member's point of order does not arise—if it was a point of order. Let us get on.

Mr. Urwin: With respect to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your notice that since I attempted to raise a point of order from this side of the House there have been at least four speeches from hon. Members opposite. I appreciate your difficulty in differentiating between one and another.
At the same time, may I ask whether it is strictly in order for the Leader of the Opposition to raise his point of order after my hon. Friend Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) has left his place, when it could have been more properly done when he was in his place?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order. The right hon. Gentleman expressed regret at the fact that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) was not in

his place. It does not make it out of order. Let us move on.

Mr. Fell: We are in a considerable difficulty, Sir. When this all took place earlier you did not, at that stage, in any way give an indication that you thought the behaviour of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) was deplorable. Now, at a later stage—and there were certain results arising from the fact that you did not say it at that stage—I understand you, Sir, to give the impression that you thought that perhaps the behaviour of the hon. Member for Buckingham was deplorable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am very sorry, but I thought that that was what I heard you say three or four minutes ago. This has, of course, had a very considerable effect on the temper of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain what the hon. Member's point of order was. If I had any effect on the temper of the House, I should regret it greatly. I should like the House to get on to other business. I do not deplore the conduct of hon. Members. It is not my job. It is my job to deprecate language, and that I did. Let us get on.

IMMIGRATION

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
On 25th February I said in answer to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) that the Government were urgently reviewing various aspects of immigration.
The Government believe that the problems this country is facing in connection with immigration require an attack on three broad fronts.
First, it is accepted in all parts of the House that once immigrants are here they should be treated for all purposes as citizens of the United Kingdom, without discrimination. The Government are not satisfied with progress in integrating Commonwealth immigrants into the community, particularly in some of our big towns and cities. This affects a number of Government Departments and I have invited the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Economic Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), to make himself


especially responsible, in a personal capacity, for co-ordinating Government action in the field and for promoting through the Departments concerned the efforts of the local authorities and of voluntary bodies.
Secondly, we all agree that we cannot have first and second-class citizens in this country. We must, therefore, take vigorous measures to prevent racial discrimination. The Government intend to introduce in the very near future a Bill to deal with racial discrimination in public places and with the evil of incitement to racial hatred.
Thirdly, the House will recall the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 4th February about evasion of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act by people coming from certain Commonwealth countries. My right hon. and learned Friend then indicated that the degree of evasion of existing controls was almost fatally eroding the Act. This situation arises from the use of false passports, impersonation, false statements about the purpose of travel to this country, and so on.
Since the Act is not working as was intended, a fresh examination of the whole problem of control is necessary. The Government therefore propose shortly to send a high-level mission, which will include experts in the field of immigration, to consider with certain Commonwealth Governments the problems that have arisen. The function of the mission will be to establish the facts, to examine what can be done to stamp out evasion at source, and to discuss whether new methods are needed to regulate the flow of migrants to the United Kingdom.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We know that it is not the right hon. Gentleman's fault that we have had this statement in our possession for only a few moments.
I have three comments to make on it. First, the right hon. Gentleman said that
it is accepted in all parts of the House that once immigrants are here they should be treated for all purposes as citizens of the United Kingdom, without discrimination.
We agree with that, and the Prime Minister concludes from that that an inquiry is necessary by his hon. Friend to establish the facts to try to see how we can proceed with more successful integration, and this, too, we support.
Secondly, the Prime Minister says that we cannot have first and second-class citizens in this country, and, therefore, he proposes legislation against racial discrimination. Again, in principle, we agree with this, and when the legislation comes forward we shall examine it with the greatest care.
I think that the Prime Minister's statement is very fair and sensible, in that it deals with integration, on the one hand, and control, on the other. It deals with them in the same document, and this is sensible, and indeed right. We therefore welcome the fact that, as well as an inquiry into integration to establish the facts and see how we can better proceed with that, there is to be an examination to see whether further control over numbers is necessary. We think that all these things are sensible, and, therefore, I agree with the Prime Minister, and we will help him as far as we can.

The Prime Minister: I regret that it was not possible to observe the usual courtesy and send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the statement, but he has indicated that he realises why.
When I said, and the right hon. Gentleman picked it up, that
it is accepted in all parts of the House that once immigrants are here they should be treated for all purposes as citizens of the United Kingdom".
I was quoting the exact words used by both the right hon. Gentleman and myself at various times in the past, and I know that all parties take the same view in this respect.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask whether I would agree that, as there was this feeling on both sides of the House, and I am sure in all parts of the country, with some exceptions which stand out, and which none of us would support, it was right to have an inquiry. I want to make it quite clear that what we are proposing in respect of integration is not simply an inquiry. It is the coordination of effective executive government action with, and through, local authorities and voluntary bodies to see that much speedier action is taken on integration, in the widest sense of the word, in terms of housing, health, education, and everything that needs to be done to minimise the possible social disturbance arising from this problem, and from the exploitation of the problem by people who ought to know better.
Thirdly, I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he supported the principle of our proposal to introduce a Bill to deal with racial discrimination and racial incitement. Obviously he, and, indeed, all hon. Members, will want to study the Bill carefully. It marks a new departure in our laws, and, of course, when there is a Bill of this kind it is important to see that while it deals effectively with those responsible for racial incitement, it deals carefully with some of the marginal problems, particularly where religious controversy is concerned.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say whether this action is simply concerned to stop evasion, or whether it is intended that there shall be a cut in the quota of immigrants coming to this country, and, if so, what the effect of this may be on certain types of employment in which they play an important part?
Secondly, with regard to the help which may be offered to local authorities, is it intended that the local authorities which have a particular problem of immigration are to be given extra monetary assistance to build schools or houses, or is this to be merely a co-ordination of the present grants and powers?

The Prime Minister: First, the purpose of the mission, as I said in my original statement, is to establish the facts. It will be better if we have more knowledge of the facts and less of the suppositions which come from certain quarters. Secondly, it is to stamp out evasion at source. It is clear that with evasion running at the rate it has been running during the past year, it will not only reduce the number of immigrants coming here illegally or improperly, but will also give greater fairness as between those who have made out a fair case for coming to this country and have been held back and other people, with a far less good case from our point of view, who are jumping the queue and getting ahead of them.
When I referred to my third point, concerned with the discussion of what new methods are needed, I had in mind what has been discussed in the House in previous debates—how immigration can be controlled at source rather than by using the blunt methods that we have at London Airport today.
As for local authorities, we shall, first, see what is needed most to deal with these problems. In many areas the problem is not so much a question of vast expenditure as of education, tolerance and understanding. But if money is needed it will, no doubt, be reported as a result of this committee's work. In certain towns and cities where there is a heavy rate of immigration the problem has been solved by the wisdom and statesmanship of local communities. We want to see exactly what lessons we can learn from those communities and spread them more widely.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be very well accepted in Liverpool? If he sends his committee to Liverpool, it will see that we have solved the problem of coloured people living together. Although there has been difficulty in other parts of the country, we have never had any racial difficulty in Liverpool. We have a solution to the problem if my right hon. Friend will send his committee to Liverpool to look at it.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a fact that in some areas, particularly seaport towns, where this problem has been familiar not for a year or two, but for generations, it has been taken by the local community in its stride. As to whether I shall send the committee to Liverpool, as my hon. Friend asks, or take it there personally, I have not yet decided.

Sir D. Renton: What do the Government intend to do, in relation to this very difficult matter, about the many thousands of immigrants, mostly Indians and Pakistanis, who do not wish to be integrated?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is very helpful to start identifying particular communities or countries. As I have said—and I am sure that it is right—there are certain areas, in big cities, where there has been great success in this process of integration, certainly with Indians and Pakistanis. I want to make that clear. We can learn from their experience, and spread the knowledge more widely.

Mr. Chapman: Will the promised legislation contain Clauses to cover discrimination in the granting of leases of


houses and tenancies to coloured people? Secondly, with regard to discrimination in employment, will my right hon. Friend consider asking his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to call a top-level conference with trade unions and employers to encourage a climate of acceptance of immigrants in jobs and professions on merit? This is a ready way in which we can improve the lot of immigrants who are already here.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend had better await the publication of the Bill before he pursues this point. It is a very important one, and we are still considering it.
As for employment problems, I very much agree with his suggestion. We are all aware that those who come here with a particular kind of skill—not least, for example, in the National Health Service—contribute something to the life of this country which we could not replace by any other means under present circumstances. Many people living today owe their lives to this fact.
But in the matter of employment we must ensure that we do not add to the anxieties of those who fear for their own livelihoods. It is important to examine the situation to see how far within the Commonwealth, outside this country, we can intensify the work of training schemes, one result of which would be to provide trained people to come to this country, but much more to provide training for the local communities' requirements in terms of skill and for migration generally within the Commonwealth.

Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the sincere appreciation of many hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as on his own, for the very constructive step of appointing a co-ordinating Minister? Will he also accept that many hon. Members on both sides—most hon. Members, I hope—very much desire to take this awkward and difficult problem out of party politics altogether. Lastly, will he think seriously about the possibility of providing extra funds to local authorities for housing? Housing is a source of jealousy between races. Extra houses for this specific purpose will be required, and therefore, extra cash needs to be provided.

The Prime Minister: I very much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has

said, and not least the fact that it was he who said it, because the House recognises that the proposal in relation to effective action to co-ordinate the work of executive action on integration is something which was urged by the British Caribbean Association, of which the hon. Member was—I am not sure whether he still is—for a long time the joint chairman. This attitude was put up in an entirely bipartisan way by the hon. Member and my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I appreciate what the hon. Member has said.
As for the monetary question, there is some argument about whether this is the right way. We had better wait to see what the committee says about it.

Mr. Lipton: I thank my right hon. Friend for putting into effect something which the Lambeth Borough Council, in principle, suggested to the previous Administration about 10 years ago, but may I ask him whether the duties of the Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs will include the co-ordination of all the Government Departments involved, namely, Health, Education, Labour, Housing, the Home Office and Commonwealth Relations—because they all have an interest in this matter, together with the various voluntary organisations and local authorities which are involved? It is only by actions through all these Departments that a satisfactory solution can be found, on a non-party basis, to this difficult problem.

The Prime Minister: I am glad that this statement commends itself to the Lambeth Borough Council. It convinces me that this will be genuinely bipartisan. The committee, in dealing with this matter, will certainly represent, and speak with authority for, all the Departments which are concerned, whether on the home or the overseas aspects of the problem. The House will be aware that most Governments proceed through the appointment of committees of senior Ministers. We do not always announce what they are, but the House will be aware from previous Answers that I have given that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and other senior Ministers have been working very hard looking at the broad problems presented by immigration. It will be to that committee of senior Ministers that my hon. Friend's committee will be reporting.

Mr. Thorneycroft: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We should pass on to other matters now. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is raising something which is wholly disconnected with this discussion, I shall have to call the Prime Minister.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I wish to raise a technical question on the subject which we have been discussing, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. All this business with statements is very difficult for the House and the Chair. Seeking to see what is the balance of convenience for the House, I have to bring Questions on statements to an end at some moment.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Today, the House will wish to pay its united tribute to the life and memory of Herbert Morrison, and to express our sympathy to Lady Morrison of Lambeth and to his daughter and her family. One of the greatest difficulties which all of us feel in doing this is to be able to confine into a narrow compass the wide range of his achievements and of his contributions to our national life.
It is more than 40 years since Herbert Morrison first entered this House as a London Member, and more than 35 years since he achieved pre-eminent national status as Minister of Transport and as the creator of the London transport system. From that moment for a quarter of a century he was at the centre of affairs not only in his party but in all aspects of our national life. Because he had made local government work so peculiarly his own, because he had created so much of what we now know as the government of London, and, in so doing, had humanised the very processes of local government, he was, in every job he did, a Minister who, while authoritative in the forms and machinery of government, always cared first about people.
It was part of the genius of Winston Churchill that, having first appointed Herbert Morrison to be Minister of Supply—a job for which he was well fitted after years of constructive criticism of pre-war supply preparations—he recognised the new challenge presented by

Hitler's bombers to the civilian life of London and other great cities by appointing Herbert Morrison as Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security.
It was in that rôle that he brought to bear his immense administrative ability, his genius for improvisation, his unrivalled knowledge of local government, and, above all, his concern for people and his understanding of them. "London can take it", the phrase which he created, represented his cheery but tough answer to Hitler, yet every blow struck against the London he loved and had done so much to rebuild hurt him more than he ever showed.
In the post-war Labour Government, Herbert Morrison held a pivotal rôle as Leader of the House, a great moderniser of Parliamentary procedure, Deputy Prime Minister, architect of the modern approach to self-governing yet responsible public authorities, particularly in the economic sphere, a man of infinite resource in Cabinet and Government committee, himself directing, as chairman of committees, so much of the legislative and administrative work of government.
Herbert Morrison's brief period at the Foreign Office was less happy, though some who criticised him then or since have failed to recognise the unique and unprecedentally difficult problem which dominated his tenure of office and which he did not stay long enough to solve or to see solved. After 1951, his years in opposition—a leader in debates, one who used his unparalleled knowledge of Parliamentary procedure and, still more, his sense of Parliamentary convention and form to dominate debate after debate from the Dispatch Box opposite—it was in these years, taking time off from the House, that he made his great contributions to the literature on the machinery of government. His work, "Government and Politics" is still a classic in this field, and compulsory reading for anyone who wants to know how our modern system works.
In 1955 came his biggest disappointment, when, by a vote of his fellows, he was passed over for the leadership of the party in favour of a younger man and a newer generation. Then, life on the back benches for the first time in over 30 years, the transition in due


course to another place—all these never extinguished the lively ability to make his own personal contribution both to the life of Parliament and to the life of the nation.
It will be as a great Parliamentarian that we shall all remember him, and, with every respect to those who, in another place, will be paying their fitting tributes to him this afternoon, we shall remember him as pre-eminently a Member of this House. He was a great leader of this House, firm, humorous, tolerant, ever sensitive to the changing moods of the House which he had a unique ability to assess, jealous of the rights of the House and its privileges and customs, and jealous of the rights of back benchers on both sides of the House.
But if this were to be the total of our assessment, how little of the real Herbert Morrison would it cover. No one in the House will object, I hope, to my making a reference to his party service. Many have mourned him this week for his devoted service in creating and building up the London Labour Party in its earliest days. No one who has ever seen Herbert Morrison in action will forget seeing him in the party committees which are the lifeblood of our system of Parliamentary democracy, or dominating a vital and throbbing party conference by his eloquence, his humour and the sheer force of his personality.
But when that has been said, there will still be those who feel that if we seek his memorial it would be in none of these places, but in the London which he loved and which he did so much to save. If the London County Council is to go down to history—as I believe it will—as the greatest unit of local government which the world has ever seen, more credit is die to Herbert Morrison than to any other individual. His last Parliamentary fight in another place was over the future of London government. He approached the problems of London with a grasp, an imagination and a sense of scale unparalleled in our civic life. Town planning, the transport services, housing, and above all, the unique contribution of the L.C.C. in its concern for deprived children, on the one hand, and old people, on the other—in all these, Herbert Morrison tempered administration with a fine humanity which sprang from his love of London people.
Waterloo Bridge, Festival Hall, indeed, the whole South Bank, will be his physical memorials, but, more lasting, will be a conception of human government, local and national, based on the recognition that all that we do here and all that is done in the council chambers and committee rooms throughout the country and more widely has no meaning except in so far as it serves, individual by individual, family by family, our fellow citizens.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Prime Minister has paid the most moving tribute to one who, in a long life, served the Labour Party with zeal, loyalty and distinction. Perhaps he will allow me to say that we share the sense of loss of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and the affection with which hon. Members on the other side of the House will have for this very likeable and very humane man.
Herbert Morrison was, as the Prime Minister said, first of all a Londoner, proud to claim that he was a cockney. His first love was his native city, and he was never wearied by its service. He will be remembered as an organiser and administrator in local government and an initiator of the highest quality and ability as a member of the London County Council for many years, and leader of the Council from 1934 to 1940.
Many tributes have been paid to Herbert Morrison. His political opponents in local government would be the first to proclaim him as one of the first distinction in their ranks. All the tributes to him have been most thoroughly deserved.
Herbert Morrison was, too, devoted to Parliament, and particularly to the House of Commons, in which so much of his public life was spent. He was a master of our procedure, he saw Parliament's place in the machinery of government and he made Parliament live in that machinery. There is, as the Prime Minister said, much of great importance to students in the history which he wrote of the working of Parliament, in the government and Parliamentary survey, as he did it from inside.
I remember him in earlier days in debates in this House, always in command of words, dominating a debate in which he took part and, in particular, at Question Time, playing this largely by intuition


and by ear, and, in doing so, giving great delight to both sides of the House, because it gave him full scope for his humour.
Herbert Morrison was, after a career in which he suffered the ups and downs of political life—they brought their triumph to him, but also took their toll—a member of the War Cabinet, looking after home security during the time that our nation was besieged. His name became a household word. He was one of those statesmen in the War Cabinet who gave the highest service, sacrifice and endurance of which they were capable. He was one of these and we remember him for this with great gratitude.
I think that it is typical of the man that he asked that at his funeral jolly music should be played, because we remember him as undefeated and with a vital personality. Above all, therefore, we remember him with gratitude as Leader of the House, and one, as the Prime Minister said, who was always jealous of the rights of Members and particularly those of back-benchers on both sides of the House.
If I may, I should like to join humbly with the Prime Minister to send to Lady Morrison the sympathy of his one-time political opponents on this side of Parliament.

Mr. J. Grimond: My hon. Friends and I would like to join in the tributes that have been paid to Lord Morrison of Lambeth and to express our sympathy to his family. If I do not repeat what has been said about his work for London and as Home Secretary during the war and in the other high offices which he occupied, this is only because the ground has been well covered already. It does not in the least mean that we do not appreciate the services which he rendered.
Herbert Morrison was a man for whom the last throw of the political ball ran wrong. He failed to become Prime Minister. But it is the greatest compliment which one can pay to him that, in spite of a career as full as any man could show, it is this ultimate disappointment which is most vividly remembered about him. He was, indeed, as the Prime Minister has said, a great Parliamentarian. He understood

the business of politics through and through. He learned it in local government, practised it in the House of Commons and then in the House of Lords and as a Minister. Again, as the Prime Minister has said, he made a notable contribution to our understanding of politics in a book which Nuffield College enabled him to write.
Herbert Morrison was a notoriously successful Leader of this House. This has perhaps led to a suspicion that he was first and foremost a political manipulator. But that is not so. In fact, it is the political manipulators who make bad leaders of this House. Lord Morrison of Lambeth was a success with the House of Commons because the House knew that he loved it and served it as a whole—and served it for itself with no ulterior motive. He was quite prepared to stand up for its rights against his own Ministerial colleagues.
Herbert Morrison's love of politics was founded on a love of the people. However high he rose in the hierarchy of Government, he always had time to help younger and less experienced men than himself. In a broadcast he made in 1957, when he talked about his time as a Minister, he said:
'Paper is not enough', I would tell my private secretary. 'My lad, the time has again come when I must shake the dust of Whitehall from my feet and go into the highways and byways of the Kingdom and meet the human race.'
The human race owes him a great deal and parts from him with profound regret.

Mr. R. H. Turton: May I, as one of the few Members who remember Herbert Morrison as the youngest member of the 1929 Government, pay my tribute to his memory. I remember him then as Minister of Transport. As a new Member of the House, I was engaged in long Committee work upstairs on the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
Herbert Morrison was always a fierce opponent in debate, but he was always considerate to his opponent, especially when that opponent was young. He won my heart in 1929, I remember, by the way in which he treated those in opposition who were young. That same quality showed when, later, he became Leader of the House.
The Prime Minister has rightly claimed that Herbert Morrison did much for London and for the Labour Party, but I always felt that, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, his strength came from his love of people and from his humanity. It is nice to think that one of the last services he gave to Parliament was when ha attended the annual conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, only two months ago. I was not present, but from what I have heard he showed what a distinguished Parliamentarian he was, not only for Britain, but for the whole Commonwealth.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING DAYS)

4.25 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a shop's early closing day to be selected by its occupier; to abolish the power to change the closing time on early closing days and the power to extend early closing day requirements to exempted shops; to substitute the expression "early closing day" for the expression "weekly half-holiday" in the Shops Act 1950; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
The purpose of my proposed Bill concerns the welfare of those men and women who work in shops. Section 1 of the Shops Act, 1950, requires that every retailer shall close his shop for the serving of customers at 1 p.m. on one weekday a week and the local authority is empowered to fix that day by order. Such an order may fix different days for different classes of shops. It may fix different days for different districts. It may fix different days for different periods of the year.
Schedule 1 of the Act exempts certain trades and businesses from the requirement to observe a weekly half holiday—for example, garages, shops that provide for refreshment and which sell perishable commodities, and those which sell newspapers, tobacco and medicines. All these are included in the list of exemptions. I mention them for the specific purpose of showing the background of the Shops Act.
It is becoming increasingly obvious, and is increasingly represented by those people who work in the shops and those who manage them, that amendments to the law are long overdue, if only to facilitate the introduction and the growth of the five-day week in the shops. For example, many stores would willingly give their employees the whole of Monday off so that they could have a long weekend, but they find it difficult to do so because of the orders of local authorities which create half-day holidays on other days of the week.
It is, therefore, difficult to arrive at agreement for the application of a five-day week when firms with branches in many districts have to comply with so many different half-day closings and so many different circumstances playing upon potential agreement on a five-day


week. There are two ways to overcome this. One is by amending the law to retain the earlier closing day as it is at present, but to make Monday as the day preferred for the one day closing in the provinces an optional alternative, just as Saturday is at present an optional alternative within the meaning of the Shops Act. But there are difficulties in the application of such a principle.
There is a second way of dealing with this problem, which is to do away with the power, now given to local authorities, to make an order, thereby making it possible for each shopkeeper to fix his own early closing day. The Bill would give effect to that second suggestion and I believe, from my experience in the distribution industry, that it is the wisest course to follow.
Under the Bill a shopkeeper would be able to fix his own early closing day, but would, to conform with the law, have to display a notice stating the day on which the premises would be closed. My Bill would make provision for him to alter that early closing day, but such an alteration can be made at not more than three-monthly intervals. The Bill would also make provision to eliminate other, more minor, matters in the Shops Act, but which have fallen into desuetude. For example, local authorities are allowed to add trades to the Schedule, but they do not do so. Because many of the provisions which exist are no longer enforced, the Bill would abolish them.
I should perhaps mention that the words "early closing day" are substituted in the Bill for the words "early half day holiday" in the Shops Act. That is done not only to conform with the rest of the Bill, but to eliminate some of the confusion which has arisen in regard to negotiations about statutory half-day holidays.
Whatever views hon. Members may hold about the wisdom or otherwise of

this or future legislation to cover shop life, my proposed Bill is widely supported by all sections of the retail distributive trade. It is supported, for example, by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Association of Local Authorities and the body which represents the inspectors who must apply the existing laws. It has the blessing of the National Chamber of Trade and of the Retail Distributive Association. These bodies are comprised of people who know distribution in all its aspects.
I ask the House to give me permission to introduce the Bill because it will be good for shop workers. It will apply to Scotland, but it will not alter the provisions of the existing Act relating to the main purposes of the Shops Acts. It will result in no charge on the Exchequer, so no Money Resolution is involved. With optimism, I seek the support of hon. Members on behalf of the shop assistants of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Winterbottom, Sir John Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Henry Solomons, Mr. A. J. Irvine, Mr. A. E. Hunter, Mr. Boardman, and Mr. J. T. Price.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING DAYS)

Bill to provide for a shop's early closing day to be selected by its occupier; to abolish the power to change the closing time on early closing days and the power to extend early closing day requirements to exempted shops; to substitute the expression "early closing day" for the expression "weekly half-holiday" in the Shops Act 1950; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 19th March and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

Orders of the Day — CEREALS MARKETING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committeee), considerd.

Clause 1.—(CONSTITUTION OF AUTHORITY.)

4.36 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 7, at the end to insert:
(4) Of the members appointed under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, at least one shall be appointed as being capable of representing, in particular, the interests of growers of home-grown cereals in Scotland, and one shall be appointed as being capable of representing, in particular, the interests of growers of home-grown cereals in Northern Ireland.
The purpose of the Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking which was made in Committee that specific provisions would be made in the Bill for the representation of the interests of growers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. During our discussions in Committee the view was strongly expressed by hon. Members on both sides that specific provisions should be included in the Clause for representation on the Authority of the interests of growers in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We readily accepted that view and agreed that provisions should be made for appointing to the Authority at least one person capable of representing the interests of growers in Scotland and one person capable of representing the interests of growers in Northern Ireland.
Since the Amendment gives effect to that undertaking, I hope that it will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I need not detain the House for long on this matter. Perhaps, in the interests of accuracy, I might mention that I thought that I heard the Minister say that there would be one representative of the interests of Scotland. I think that he meant to say "at least one".
This was the second Amendment on the Committee's Notice Paper. It was the first one which the Government

accepted in principle. They gave us an undertaking that they would look at the matter again and I think that it set the seal upon the very smooth way in which, on the whole, the Committee worked. I am obliged to the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend for accepting the principle of the Amendment and I would like them to know the great satisfaction which this will give to Scottish agriculturists.
When the Minister of State said that the Amendment was readily accepted, I would merely venture to say that his right hon. Friend said that he had been persuaded of the rightness of this; and persuasion is bound to follow a state of mild reluctance. Be that as it may, I welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(BONUS PAYMENTS AND LOANS IN RESPECT OF FORWARD CONTRACTS.)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 11, to leave out from "whereby" to "by" in line 22, and to insert:
any person who—

(a) satisfies the Authority that in the ordinary course of business he makes loans to farmers to provide them with working capital, and that a grower of home-grown cereals has applied to him for such a loan, or has received from him such a loan which has not yet been repaid, or
(b) satisfies the Authority that he extends credit to farmers in the ordinary course of a business of supplying goods or services required for agricultural purposes, and that a grower of home-grown cereals has applied to him for credit to be so extended, or has received from him credit so extended which is still outstanding,
and who (in either case) fulfils such other requirements (if any) as may be determined in accordance with the scheme, may request the Authority, and the Authority shall thereupon be required, to furnish to him such information as may be determined in accordance with the scheme with respect to loans made to that grower.
Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to address the House since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) was appointed shadow Minister and became spokesman on agriculture for the Opposition. I congratulate him and, speaking personally, I sincerely wish him well. I am sure


that we shall have our arguments but, with his great experience of the House, I know that he will always express his case clearly for his party.
The principle of the Amendment aroused considerable discussion in Committee. I said to hon. Members opposite then that I would consider the matter further to see whether improvements could be made. I have done that and this Amendment seeks to define more strictly the persons who may be entitled to information about loans granted by the Authority. There was much discussion about the provision in subsection (5) of the Clause which deals with the disclosure of information about loans granted by the Authority.
These provisions are designed to implement an agreement reached between the farming and trade interests last September. Most hon. Members know about that agreement, which has, indeed, been the basis of our legislation. We are acting still in the spirit that information about these loans should be made available so as to safeguard the position of agricultural merchants and others providing credit to farmers. It was accepted that this principle should be part of our legislation, and that this agreement should be honoured.
It was also accepted on both sides that information about loans made by the Authority to growers should be disclosed only to those who had a legitimate interest in seeking the information. In other words, we are seeking to safeguard the position of the agricultural merchants and others providing credit to farmers—a provision that is accepted on both sides. The question that was discussed was whether the wording of Clause 2(5) in the form in which it then was was adequate from the latter point of view. I undertook to consider all the arguments that have been put forward, and this Amendment derives from that undertaking.
The effect of the Amendment is that the only persons who may be entitled to information about a loan granted by the Authority to a particular grower are those who can demonstrate two things to the satisfaction of the Authority. What are those two things? First, they must demonstrate that they are persons who, in the ordinary course of business, make

loans to farmers to provide them with working capital, or that they are persons who extend credit to farmers in the ordinary course of a business of supplying goods or services required for agricultural purposes.
The second requirement is that the persons in question must be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Authority either that they have made to the grower who is the subject of the inquiry a loan or extended credit which is still outstanding, or that they have had a request from him for a loan or credit.
But persons who satisfy either of these general requirements are not given by this Amendment an unconditional right—I make that quite clear—to information about loans made to individual growers. As I have always argued, we must give the Authority some discretion. It must be for the Authority to determine in its schemes what other requirements, if any, should be imposed. I am sure that this is reasonable, and that hon. Members opposite will accept it.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Woodbridge and Sudbury (Mr. Stainton), who made important contributions, suggested that the Authority should have the right to refuse the information being sought where the credit status being investigated for future transactions or services to be rendered did not exceed a figure of, say, £250. As I have said, we must give the Authority a measure of flexibility. I am not certain whether it would wish to stipulate any figure in its schemes, whether for future or for current transactions, but the Amendment would leave the Authority free to do so if it wished. This is what I submitted in Committee, and I know that my hon. Friends have stressed that same point.
We have here an Authority that will be comprised of members drawn from the producer section and from the trade itself. They will have knowledge of the trade, and for that reason I think that we should give the Authority a reasonable measure of discretion. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the House as implementing in a fair and reasonable way the agreement reached between the farming and trade interests in September while, at the same time, ensuring that the farmer's privacy is safeguarded—that is important.
The farmer's privacy was stressed in Committee, and it is a valid point. Bearing that in mind, and remembering also the spirit of the agreement, the nature of the Authority and of those who will make it up, we feel this to be a reasonable Amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this Amendment which, as he says, implements his undertaking in Committee. Anxiety was expressed on both sides of the Committee about the original drafting, and it was thought that the Amendment then moved by the right hon. Gentleman perhaps went a little too wide, and did not fully safeguard the privacy of the farmer.
I quite accept that the trade or the trader should be able to find out whether credit is outstanding, or whether the Authority is making loans in respect of bonus payments or otherwise to farmers. Nevertheless, the scheme must safeguard the position of the farmer. This provision is, perhaps, not quite as narrow or as tightly drawn as we originally suggested but, as he has pointed out, the fact that the Authority may itself lay down such other requirements as it thinks fit goes a long way to meeting our case in Committee.
I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking up the point about credit limits made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge and Sudbury (Mr. Stainton). The words proposed seem to enable the Authority to lay down, if it so wished, that £250 should be the minimum, or £1,000 should be the maximum, or whatever it might be, depending entirely on what the Authority itself decides.
My hon. Friend also said in Committee that the Authority might keep a register of loans. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered that suggestion. I think that in any case the Authority will keep a register, though it will not, of course, disclose it to anyone who comes along even though they do satisfy the provisions of this Amendment. If the Authority kept a register of loans beyond a certain figure it might make for administrative cleanness, and it would facilitate the working of the Clause.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: In one respect this Amendment has taken my name in vain. First, it shows the impartial attitude that we on this side took in Committee to the whole business of putting down Amendments, having in mind the farmers, on the one hand, and the agricultural merchants, on the other.
Information has now appeared in the Press of the letter I received from the agricultural merchants, who pointed out that the Amendment we wished to move was not one that they could accept. How that private letter to me got into the hands of the farming Press is still a mystery, but I should like to say that the information certainly did not come from myself or my hon. Friends. In any case, that letter was not to our advantage.
The point was an important one, and we felt that neither the Bill as originally drafted nor the Amendment tabled in Committee by the Minister met that point. We are, therefore, grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making this change now. I hope that as a result of the Government's now moving an Amendment to meet the point people outside the House who accused us of delay in Committee, taking the example of this Amendment and the letter, will now realise the error of their ways.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I hope that this is on the Amendment and not on the letter.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I should like to make a brief point on the last two lines of the Amendment, where the words are "be required"—there is no obligation upon the Authority—
to furnish to him such information as may be determined in accordance with the scheme …
This seems to be tautological. The Authority is required precisely to do something which is subsequently of its own definition.
It is, therefore, extremely important that the Minister, in replying to these exchanges, should indicate in fuller detail than he has done already the kind of policy which the Authority is to follow in determining the types of information to be released in accordance with the scheme.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to hon. Members for accepting the spirit of the Amendment. I have tried to look at this matter with a view to improvement and I still come to the point, which I mentioned earlier, that there must be some flexibility. The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) suggests that this is tautological, but I am advised that the drafting is right. Legal language is often tautological, and we must accept that.
I give the assurance that this matter will be looked at carefully. The Authority must have some flexibility, and it will prepare the scheme. The register which was mentioned in Committee and again today may be a good thing to have, but I should prefer to leave it open to the Authority to decide whether it will keep a register and what type of register it should be for administrative purposes, because this is really an administrative matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO SCHEMES UNDER SECTIONS 2 AND 3.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 1, to leave out "in respect of any cereals".
We might also take the next Amendment, in line 3, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no objection.

Mr. Hoy: The object of the Amendments is to meet a problem which would arise under the Bill as it stands when grain is dried and stored in bulk before sale. Under the Bill, bonuses under Clause 2 or Clause 3 schemes must be paid to the grower of the cereals in respect of which payment is made, or to the person to whom the interest of the grower in that payment has passed. The House will appreciate that when grain has been bulked with the grain of other growers before sale it can no longer be identified as the grain of the particular grower. Under the Bill as it stands the Authority would find itself in all probability unable to pay a bonus to a grower whose grain had been bulked in this way before sale.
The point is important in relation to groups or co-operatives which have provided

bulk drying storage facilities for their members. I am sure that the House will agree that the provision of facilities of this kind is a development which we would all wish to see encouraged. It may be of assistance if I explain how the point is covered under the cereals deficiency payments scheme. I will take wheat as an example. When a grower delivers a quantity of wheat to a bulk drying and storage plant approved by the Departments, he receives in exchange a silo warrant which entitles him to a corresponding quantity of wheat from the silo. When he wishes to sell any part of this silo wheat entitlement he instructs the silo operator accordingly. The latter releases the appropriate quantity of wheat from the silo to the purchaser and sends a note of confirmation to the seller. This is used as the basis of the seller's claim for deficiency payment.
I am sure that it will be agreed that where a grower is entitled to a deficiency payment under the cereal deficiency payments scheme he should be equally entitled to receive a bonus payment from the Authority if in other respects he satisfies the requirements of its schemes. The Bill covers the position in the great majority of cases, since these are cases where the grain which is sold preserves its separate identity as grain grown by a particular grower until the transaction is complete. But, as I have explained, the position of grain which is bulked before sale is not covered.
The Amendments meet the point by providing that the bonus payments are to be made to the grower who makes the forward contract under a Clause 2 scheme or who delivers the cereals in question under a Clause 3 scheme. This would cover the position both of a grower whose grain retains its separate identity until the transaction is completed and of the grower whose grain is dried or stored in bulk before sale.
I hope that I can say that this meets the wishes of all the people concerned, and that the Amendments will commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This is a new point which was not brought out in detail in Committee, although we ran round the question of bulking and drying grain. I accept that it is important that the grain which loses its identity


because it goes to the grain store should not lose thereby any bonus payments or any other money from the Authority. The only point which I query is the wording of the second Amendment.
It is a question whether that wording covers what the Parliamentary Secretary wants and what, I am sure, the entire House wants. Where a forward contract has been made by the grower we must be clear at what point he uses the certificate or warrant which he will obtain from the grain silo operator to claim his bonus. If it is on the delivery of the cereal in question, then delivery at what point? Is it delivery to the silo or delivery to the seller? It is only a small point of drafting, but it is one on which we want to be quite clear.
I am certain that my hon. Friends will be able to accept the principle of the Amendments, but we should like to be assured that the wording of the second Amendment carries out what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and that if a grower makes his contract after the grain has been bulked he will not be deprived at that stage of the bonus payments which otherwise would be due to him.

Mr. Hoy: I think that we have covered that point. The wording of the Amendment preserves the right to obtain the bonus and, off the cuff, I would say that in the normal way that would be when the grain is sold. In other words, it will be when the grain is taken from the silo and delivered to the seller.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 3, leave out "of the cereals" and insert:
who makes the forward contract or, as the case may be, delivers the cereals in question".—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 8.—(ORDERS EMPOWERING AUTHORITY TO DEAL IN HOME-GROWN CEREALS.)

5.0 p.m.

Sir Martin Redmayne: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 2, to leave out from "practice" to the end of line 3 and to insert:
except when by agreement between the authority and the trade it is clearly impracticable to so do".

I wonder whether, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I might go as much out of order as the Minister did in paying me a compliment. My only comfort at this moment is that I have a very good team with me both on the Front Bench and on the back benches. I wish that I shared the Minister's confidence in my ability to express myself clearly, but, after 13 years in the Whips' office, I shall have to do my best and, as one says when sitting over there, "see how we get on".
In the calm of the resumed debate on this point in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that Clause 8 had been discussed with a certain amount of pleasant acrimony. I thought that a splendid Parliamentary term. I can remember many occasions when I should like to have used it myself, with as much justice. I did not take part in that debate, but, perhaps on that account, I have been able to take a fairly objective view of what the arguments were and of the points which were arrived at.
It is clear—I suspect that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree—that in Committee he aroused a considerable suspicion that the trading powers of the Authority were viewed by the Labour Government not simply as a useful reserve power within the ambit of the Bill, but as something having a certain doctrinal significance. The suspicion was created in the minds of my hon. Friends that these powers would be an end in themselves, perhaps as a first step towards a commodity commission in some form, rather than as a simple means towards the accepted and agreed ends of the Bill.
When the debate was resumed, the hon. Gentleman, aided, perhaps, by a new brief, seemed a little less sinister in his approach. I do not blame him for a new brief—I know enough about the machinery of Government to understand how that sort of thing happens—but it is not unreasonable now that we should return to the question and have the answer re-stated on the Floor of the House with the publicity which accompanies such statements.
The burden of the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) was that the Authority must operate through the trade. We all


know that this was the nub of the agreement reached between the parties to the negotiation conducted by my right hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor. The Parliamentary Secretary's first statement on this point, right at the beginning of the debate, was unexceptionable. He said:
We know that it was part of the agreement between the farming and trade interests that the Authority would operate through normal trade channels. I think that was only fair and practicable, and it would clearly not be fair to alter the Authority's buying operations, which in any case will be limited in comparison, to disrupt the normal procedures of the cereals trade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 11th February, 1965; c. 181.]
If the debate had ended there, I doubt that my hon. Friends would have had very much to complain about, but only in the next column the hon. Gentleman is reported as using words which qualified that statement to a considerable extent, suggesting that, when the Authority was buying on forward contract, it was conceivable that it might not always be practicable for the Authority to make all the forward contracts it considered desirable, or, equally, if it was buying spot, it would not be able to buy all the grain which it required in the circumstances. My hon. Friends could not conceive of circumstances, looked at in a commercial sense, in which this statement of the hon. Gentleman's would be justified.
I think it fair to say that, as the debate proceeded, the Parliamentary Secretary's position rather deteriorated. I will not say that it was a question of
O, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive".
But I know enough from past experience, as, I am sure, the Parliamentary Secretary does, that, very often, the more one tries to explain a point in the House the more tangled the explanation becomes. Nevertheless, a few minutes later—this is column 185—the hon. Gentleman said that the Authority would be buying
at a time when the grain trade faces difficulties and the merchants are not able to do the job
and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), commenting on that, said that he saw no reason—I know that my hon. Friends with experience of the trade agree—

why dealers should not lay their hands on the grain if the Authority is able to do so. This seems a reasonable enough proposition.
Matters became even worse, and we read in column 198 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings on the same day that the Parliamentary Secretary said:
All I said distinctly, discussing this Clause, was that if the Authority were given power to trade it must be given complete freedom to trade in every way".
With that we could not have got further from the truth.
At the next sitting, peace broke out and we came back to "Square 1". The Parliamentary Secretary said:
We have written it in as near as we can to the agreement that was reached in September. I do not think that anybody has anything to fear, and I hope that the Clause will now be accepted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 16th February, 1965; c. 210.]
How often have I heard that said, too.
It is not unreasonable, after that interesting kaleidoscope of quotations, to ask which of the interpretations is correct. We want to know that the Government have no intention of allowing the Authority to go beyond the agreement reached by the parties to it, and they have no intention of using this Bill as a means of introducing compulsory trading powers to undermine the acceptable and accepted patterns of the trade.
In this connection, it is not, perhaps, irrelevant, although a little out of order, I suspect, to refer to an Amendment which you have not selected, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in Clause 18, page 14, line 33, which refers to the accumulation of funds by the Authority to an extent which one might regard as excessive. In this connection—this is entirely relevant to my previous argument the Under—Secretary of State for Scotland said:
In other words, these funds could be used, as I understand it, for any purpose in connection with trade …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 23rd February, 1965; c. 321.]
One sees at once that, if we choose to have a suspicious mind in this matter, that quotation is much in point. Those words in that connection, taken by themselves, seem to destroy the whole conception of reserve powers.
In fact, I have no possible reason to believe that the Parliamentary Secretary's first and last statements were not


correct, but, if we could have that confirmed from the Box now, it would make Us considerably more happy about the Bill.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I should like to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruchcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) in the Amendment. He summed up our deliberations in Committee extremely well, considering that he was not there. This shows the view of somebody unbiassed reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee—that, as I pointed out then, the first reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was acceptable but that those replies which were made off the cuff went too far. Since then I have been in touch with members of the trade, and it is clear that the hon. Member has alarmed them. I believe that they have been to see him about what he said.
If the Government accepted the Amendment it would give assurance to the trade. As the Minister said earlier, the Bill is based on an agreement not only with the N.F.U. but with the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants. It is felt that this Clause is a departure from the agreement arrived at. I had hoped that the Minister would speak in the debate and would accept the Amendment, and that he would thus meet some of the fears which have been aroused in the minds of the traders about the Authority having all this power. As I pointed out in Committee, the Clause makes the position rather a nonsense. I believe that the Minister could go a long way to reassure us by accepting the Amendment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): First of all, considerable play has been made of what I said by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), who has obviously read the HANSARD report of the Committee meetings very carefully. There has been some assumption that I have retracted in some way what I said. I would say now that I do not retract in any way from the first thing I said, all I said in between that and the last thing I said, and, indeed, the last thing I said.
I was amused at the suspicion that we on this side of the House would consider the reserve powers to trade as the be-all-and-end-all of the Bill rather than just

reserve powers which might be required. If the right hon. Gentleman has read the HANSARD of the Committee stage as carefully as he makes out he will know that some of his hon. Friends asked us to take these powers straight away. This shows that we are not alone in thinking that the powers might be necessary. I am sorry that he has used the word "sinister". It was used before, and I am certainly sorry to give that impression. We will do our best to see whether we can allay that fear.
From what the right hon. Gentleman said it appears to have been assumed that if I had stuck to my brief we should have got on better. Perhaps I had better stick to my brief today. Nevertheless, it was part of the agreement reached between the trade and the farming interests that the Authority would operate through the trade channels and it was not intended to allow the Authority's buying operations, which would in any case be limited, to disrupt the normal procedures of the trade. This is the origin of the provision in the Clause as it stands.
The effect is to require the Authority, when it is exercising its powers to buy cereals, to conform to the normal trade practice in buying from or through established dealers
so far as appears to the Authority to be practicable to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a good deal of discussion in Committee on an Amendment moved by hon. Members opposite which sought to delete the words
so far as appears to the Authority to be practicable to do so.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) asked the reasons for that phrase and asked when it would be impracticable to do so. It was in answering that question that this sinister thought was supposed to be brought into my mind.
5.15 p.m.
But I should like to repeat the examples which I gave. First, if we are giving the Authority power to trade then we must not inhibit it. It must have complete scope to trade in any way and must not be inhibited in any way. The second point which I made was that farmers might not wish to sell to the trade. They might wish to sell direct. I called the attention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West to the fact that there might


be occasions on which farmers could not find merchants and that there might be merchants who were in dispute with farmers in an area where there were only one or two merchants. I made the point that merchants could—I do not say that they would—take too much commission and hold the Authority to ransom. We hoped that such a situation would not arise but we had to allow in the Bill for anything like that happening, and that is why we put in this Clause.
It appears from the Amendment that we were able to persuade hon. Members opposite that the obligation imposed on the Authority by this Clause should be limited to what is practicable. But the Clause as it stands leaves the decision as to what is practicable in any given set of circumstances to the Authority itself, and this is only right. I emphasise that it would be wrong to inhibit the Authority in trading. The Authority will, after all, be responsible, and as I emphasised in Committee we can rely on it to honour its obligations.
The Amendment would have the effect of leaving the decision as to what was practicable in a given case to be arrived at by agreement between the Authority and the trade. This is tantamount almost to giving the trade the right to stop operations, bearing in mind the time factor and everything else and the argument which would go on.
I am sure that the Authority will be able to count on the wholehearted co-operation of the trade in furthering the objectives of the Bill, but it would be wrong to put the trade in the position in which it could dictate to the Authority the terms under which it would conduct its buying operations. This would create an intolerable situation for the Authority. I hope that the House will agree that the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Prior: I feel that we have allowed the Parliamentary Secretary to get away with one or two remarks on which he ought to be taken to task. First, he said that my hon. Friends advised the Government to take these powers straight away. If he reads the report of the Committee stage he will see that what we were suggesting was that these powers might well be necessary but that it would be better, if they were to be taken at

all, that they should be taken by direct decision of Parliament rather than being pushed on to us after the powers had been used. In the latter case in due course they would be put to Parliament for approval. That was the objection which my hon. Friends and I had to the use of these powers.
It is easy to understand why the hon. Member does not retract the words which he used in the middle of his various speeches in Committee. As far as we know, he believes in commodity commissions, and he would like to see the Government introducing them. It is, therefore, even more remarkable that the Government should have swallowed this excellent Bill, which is planning by consent, hook, line and sinker. I must remind them of the speech made by the First Secretary in a debate on 29th June, when he said that a Labour Government would introduce commodity commissions and establish
rather more producer boards with real marketing powers.
He said,
I do not mean some of the half-baked things that pass for marketing boards these days."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 1051.]
It is, therefore, quite understandable why the Parliamentary Secretary should have taken the view in Committee which he there expressed.
The words which we have suggested are clearly words which are acceptable to the trade and they are not so binding on the Authority as the Parliamentary Secretary has made out. After all, all that the Authority has to do is to ask a member of the trade to buy for the Authority. There are many members of the trade and, if that request is at all reasonable, it will be met.
The trade has some ground for fearing that the Government's intentions in this respect are not quite what is written in the agreement. In view of the great concessions which the trade has made, the least the Government can do is to accept the Amendment for which the trade has asked. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reverse his decision and allow us to have the Amendment.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has been so


unreasonable and has broken the harmony which has existed between us until now, but perhaps I can persuade the Minister to change his mind and to restore that harmony. After all, we are not being unreasonable and what we are asking will not put the Authority in any difficulty. The Amendment is perfectly practicable and will allay a great deal of the anxiety which has been caused by what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was so bellicose when he said that he would not withdraw a single word of what he had said in Committee from this or that column and that all of it stood from beginning to end. That is a great pity, because it means that the Authority is to have complete scope to be able to trade as it likes.
The agreement drawn up among all the parties before the Bill was introduced said that the Authority should use trade channels as much as possible. Notwithstanding anything the Parliamentary Secretary has already said, it is very difficult to envisage a situation in which the trade, on behalf of the Authority, could not get hold of any grain which the Authority might wish to buy, either on forward contract or spot.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that in country areas there might be farmers who did not wish to sell to a merchant because of some disagreement between them. Has he any experience of that ever happening in remote areas, or in any country districts? Even if there were a dispute between a farmer and a merchant, more than one merchant serves an area and trade channels could perfectly well accommodate a situation like that.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to study the Amendment again. Of course we accept that the Authority will be reasonable and responsible, but so will the trade. The only way to make the scheme work is for all parties to behave responsibly. The Parliamentary Secretary imputed something which he should not have imputed when he suggested that only the Authority would act responsibly, thereby suggesting that the trade would not and implying that the trade might blackmail the Authority. If that kind of situation should develop, and I am certain that it would not, the whole operation of the Bill would come to naught.
With that in view, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reassure us, not only hon. Members, but people outside the House, and to say that he means the trade to be the channel which should be used in 99 per cent. of the cases and that he accepts that the trade will always act responsibly. If that is so, I can see no reason why he should not accept the Amendment and say that agreement should be reached between the Authority and responsible members of the trade before the Authority resorts to going into the market of its own accord. We do not want in any circumstances to have parallel organisations in which the trade and the Authority are competing in the same markets for grain, either forward contracts or spot.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be reasonable and understanding and to allay the fears of hon. Members and of people outside the House. We all want to see this Authority work properly and we all have in mind the best interests of orderly marketing. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment, I certainly cannot advise my right hon. Friend to withdraw it.

Mr. Stainton: I have not found it easy to decide the right approach to this rather perplexing problem. On the one hand, I favour the Clause as it stands having regard to these factors. The first is the need not to restrict the Authority and with that to tie in the important point of marketing tactics. It should also be borne in mind, and I am surprised that the Minister has not made this point, that nine out of the 21 to 23 members of the Authority are to be recruited from the trade and will, therefore, presumably be able to exert considerable influence on the precise procedures to be adopted by the Authority. Another matter which has worried me is that we have embodied into this provision the idea of established dealers—a licence to a living from now on. I do not like this, for the trade always has changed and always will, and this suggestion gives me cause for alarm.
Having put those arguments on one side of the balance sheet, it must be borne in mind on the other side of the account that it is not just a matter of the composition of the Authority, or what is in writing in the Bill, which will make


the new scheme work. This is to be a very big venture which will come under stresses and strains and, if it is to get off the ground, it will need the utmost good will and co-operation of all parties.
Despite what I have said about the membership of the Authority and the safeguards implicit in that alone, if the trade comes into this new marketing situation with any kind of fears or doubts, or looking over its shoulder, that would be a grave disservice to what could be a cornerstone of agricultural marketing in this country if handled properly.
I hope that I shall not stray too far from the Amendment if I invite the right hon. Gentleman to comment on the fact that the first two words in subsection (4) are "in buying", while there is no reference to selling. Subsection (3) might cover the act of selling as well as buying, but this is very obscure and I doubt the wisdom of the drafting.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I will respond to what has been said by hon. Members. I am reasonable, and I think that our approach has been reasonable. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) tried to raise other issues which I should be out of order in discussing. The concept of commodity commissions dealing with imports, which was proposed on a previous occasion, and matters of that sort are outside the scope of the Bill. It would, therefore, be improper for me to get involved in arguments with the hon. Member for Lowestoft, however attractive they may be and however much I used to enjoy being involved in them. He is only trying to provoke controversy where controversy should not exist.
I have noted what the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) said about my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. In Committee my hon. Friend merely repeated over and over again that we must allow the Authority to have flexibility. This is what we have tried to ensure throughout our discussions on this very important part of the Bill dealing with the trading functions of the Authority which, broadly, are covered by Part II and which are involved specifically in the Clause and the Amendment. I cannot go beyond that.
We are, of course, anxious to have the co-operation of the trade. This agreement is the result of co-operation. I have stressed throughout that we must have a partnership. I note what the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) said. If the Authority does not get off the ground, if there is bad will on the part of any section, whether producers or the trade, who are partners to the agreement, it would be bad for all. I am anxious that the Authority shall work and shall act in the best trade practice.
Mention has been made of the composition of the Authority and of the fact that on the Authority there will be representatives of the trade and therefore that it will not act stupidly. We must assume that the members of the Authority will be reasonable people. If we assume that, we must not restrict them. The purpose of the Amendment is to exert a veto. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has stressed over and over again that the Clause as it stands leaves the immediate decision about what is practicable in any circumstances to the Authority. I should have thought that this was right. The hon. Gentleman mentioned an obscure point. There may be some substance in it, and I am prepared to consider it. But this is a matter for the Authority, and I give the assurance that it will conform to normal trading practice.
I have no desire to alienate anybody or to create fears among people who have concluded in principle an agreement with the producers and the Government of the day. I have fulfilled my promise. I accepted this agreement. Although it was concluded by my predecessors, I endorsed it. Hon. Members opposite must accept this. I believe that if we can get the trade and producers together, it will be a step towards the sensible and orderly marketing of home-grown cereals. This is what I want. We can argue about other matters, but that would be out of order. I want a successful Home-Grown Cereals Authority working in the interests of the trade, the producers and the country. Our legislation is designed to achieve this.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will not seek to shackle the Authority and weaken its position. In certain circumstances we must give it some measure


of discretion. I have said this over and over again. No one must dictate to the Authority. This would be very bad. It would be very awkward if we put the trade in a position where it would be able to dictate to the Authority the terms on which it was to conduct its buying operations. This will come through agreement. The men on the Authority are drawn from the trade. What more can we do? This is reasonable, and I hope that hon. Members will accept it.
The Amendment uses the phrase "to so do". The phrase "so to do" has also been used. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke, he used the phrase "to do so". That is better grammar, and I would certainly prefer it. However, the wording of the Amendment is not very effective. I beg the Opposition to be reasonable. Here is an agreement, here is legislation, here is an Authority comprised of the trade and producers, and here is an opportunity to let the Authority go ahead and to wish it well. In view of this, I do not think the Amendment should be accepted.

Sir M. Redmayne: By leave, I should like to speak again.
Although the Minister has scolded us a little, his statement was very different from what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said. He said that he stood by every word which he uttered in Committee. The Minister has got it on record that he is most anxious to have the co-operation of the trade. He speaks about shackling the Authority and exerting a veto, but if we accept that Part II of the Bill will work only if it is carried out with the co-operation of the trade our Amendment is perfectly acceptable. I do not think that the point about whether the phrase should be "so doing" or "doing so" is very important.
These things always depend on atmosphere. Almost all management is a matter of maintaining good temper, whether it is in trade circles, in political parties or in the House of Commons. I say in credit to the Minister that his speech has certainly improved the atmosphere, but we do not accept the argument that the Amendment would allow a veto to be exerted.
However, I think that we have taken this point far enough. I will not seek to withdraw the Amendment. I should like

it to be negatived just as a small signpost of our views, which we hope will be permanently marked by the Minister.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have a reasonable attitude to the Bill because I believe that I was the only Suffolk Member who did not serve on the Committee. I have this distinction because at that time I was serving on the Committee considering the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill. Now that I have been released from those duties, I feel it right, as a Member representing a very considerable cereals growing constituency, to make one or two comments on the Amendment.
The Minister said that he is a reasonable man. I say at once that his tone and words have been very reasonable indeed. I was, however, struck by his use of the words "dictation", "shackle", and "veto". As a reasonable man, I cannot see how the Amendment adds up to dictation by the trade to the Authority, or that it shackles the Authority, or that it involves the question of a veto. I am sure that the Minister, as a reasonable man, would agree with me on that.
It is, however, the Minister's logic which surprises me. Having said that the Amendment would build in dictation to the Authority's organisation and would shackle it, he went on to say to hon. Members on this side, "You need not worry, because the trade is on the Authority anyway". We are asked, "If members of the trade on the Authority are treated as reasonable men, why should not they be treated as reasonable and co-operative when they are off the Authority?" All that the Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that the Authority consults and reaches agreement with the trade.
The Minister's answer is, "The trade is already on the Authority". I suggest that there cannot be any reason for disagreeing with the Amendment from a reasonable point of view because, as we all know perfectly well, the Authority cannot work without the agreement of the trade. All the Amendment seeks to do is to assert what we all know to be a fact—that there must be agreement between the trade and the Authority if it is to work. As, I hope, a reasonable man, I cannot see what the Minister has against the Amendment. There are no shackles and there is no dictation here. I ask the


Minister, with humility, to think once again.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11.—(SALE OF CEREALS PURCHASED BY AUTHORITY.)

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 9, line 9, to leave out "beginning with" and to insert "immediately following".
I hope that, this time, I might be able to please the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), because in Committee he wanted to clarify the wording. This is purely a drafting Amendment which derives from an undertaking given in Committee that we would see whether the wording of this part of the Bill could be improved.
As the House is aware, the Authority is required under subsection (1) to dispose of any cereals that it may have bought during a particular cereal year not later than one month after the end of that year. Under subsection (2), which we are now considering, the Authority is required as soon as practicable—I am sorry that that word has to come up again—after that time to send a certificate to Ministers either stating that no home-grown cereals were held by the Authority at that time or, alternatively, specifying the quantities and kinds involved. These certificates will operate as a check on the performance by the Authority of its obligations under subsection (1) to dispose of any cereals that it has bought not later than one month after the end of the cereal year.
The certificates should clearly be submitted as soon as practicable after the end of the period to which they relate. The current cereal year runs from 1st July to 30th June. If it could be assumed that the cereal year will remain unchanged, it would be possible to require the Authority to submit the certificates as soon as practicable after 31st July. We have, however, to allow for the possibility that the cereal year may be changed. We cannot, therefore, relate the requirement to submit certificates to a particular date.
Hon. Members opposite suggested in Committee that the requirement might be expressed as a requirement to submit a certificate

as soon as practicable after one calendar month after the end of the year".
The hon. Member for Lowestoft added, however, that he did not like to use the word "after" twice in it mediate succession. The effect of the Amendment is that the Authority would be required to submit a certificate
as soon as practicable after the end of the month immediately following the end of the year".
I hope that the hon. Member for Lowestoft will agree that this is an improvement in the wording of the Bill and that the Amendment will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for returning to his more normal rôle of being reasonable and understanding and for fulfilling the undertaking which he gave in Committee following the forceful arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). The wording of the Bill was incomprehensible and we wanted to get it made clear and understandable by everybody, not only in the House, but outside. The words now used by the hon. Gentleman make it much clearer and should save any confusion which might have arisen from the original wording.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(ORDERS PRESCRIBING RATES OF LEVY.)

5.45 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 10, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(2) Together with any estimate submitted under this section, the Authority shall submit to the Ministers proposals as to—

(a) the kinds of home-grown cereals in respect of which a levy should be imposed, and
(b) the apportionment of the amount specified in the estimate as between those kinds of home-grown cereals.

I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it would be in order to discuss at some time the consequential Amendment, No. 17 in Schedule 3.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no objection if the House is agreeable.

Mr. Mackie: These Amendments also derive from an undertaking given in Committee when Amendments to the Clause moved by hon. Members opposite


were discussed. The object of those Amendments was to require the Authority, when putting forward estimates or supplementary estimates to Ministers of the amount or amounts required to be raised by levy, to submit at the same time an apportionment of the amount or amounts involved as between the different kinds of home-grown cereals. I said that while the drafting of the Amendments as moved by hon. Members opposite was defective, the Government accepted the principle behind them and intended to incorporate that principle in the Bill.
The effect of the present Amendments will be to require the Authority, when it submits an estimate or supplementary estimate, to make proposals as to the kinds of home-grown cereals in respect of which a levy or supplementary levy should be imposed and as to the apportionment as between those kinds of cereals of the amount or amounts covered by the estimate. The Amendments therefore give effect to my undertaking and I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for following up his undertaking in Committee. I accept that when the Authority is putting forward both a normal estimate and a supplementary estimate, as provided in Schedule 3 it is now being asked to separate them between the various products—barley, wheat, oats and so on.
Is it clear that the Authority should do this also for its functions in Parts I and II and that under the Amendment they should be separated? I expected that the Amendment would come in twice, under both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of subsection (1). It is, however, a new subsection to the Clause. I assume, therefore, that it covers the point that the Authority will not only submit separate estimates for Part I and Part II, but that they will be subdivided and not a composite estimate, always assuming that Clause 8 is in operation and that the Authority is in the market. Unless the Authority does this, the whole operation will become pointless and unnecessary. If the Amendment achieves the purpose of ensuring separation, I am grateful to the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking which he gave at an earlier stage.

Mr. John Mackie: Yes, the Amendment ensures that the figures will be separated.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16.—(SCHEME FOR RAISING LEVY OTHERWISE THAN BY DEDUCTION.)

Mr Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 13, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to "may" and to insert:
So far as is necessary for determining the liability of persons to a levy imposed in accordance with a scheme under this section, such a scheme".
This Amendment also derives from an undertaking which was given in Committee when we were discussing an Amendment to Clause 16(2,b) moved by hon. Members opposite. Clause 16(2,b) provides that a scheme under Clause 16 may empower the Authority to require growers, dealers or processors to furnish returns and other information and to produce for examination books and other documents in its custody or under its control. The point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) was that there was apparently no limitation in the Clause on the kinds of books and other documents that might be required to be produced and that the requirement might even, on the face of it, extend to books or documents of a private nature extraneous to the Authority's business. This, of course, was not the intention and I therefore undertook to move an Amendment on Report which would make the position clear.
The effect of the Amendment is that any of the powers referred to in subsection (2) can be conferred on the Authority only to the extent that this is necessary for determining the liability of growers to the levy. Thus there can be no question of the Authority seeking access to books or other documents other than those which are strictly relevant to the purposes of a scheme for the direct collection of a levy under the Clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will feel that I have fulfilled the pledge that I gave in Committee.

Mr. Stodart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for obliging us in this way. In Committee we tabled an Amendment which had the virtue of being slightly less than half the length of the Amendment which


we are now considering. However, I am ready to take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that the simplicity of our Amendment may well have been carried to excess. For my part, I am not clear that that is so, but I do not think that we need bother the hon. Gentleman to explain the difference between his Amendment and ours, and I therefore content myself with thanking him for joining us in putting in what I think is a well worthwhile safeguard.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17.—(OFFENCES IN RELATION TO SCHEME UNDER SECTION 16.)

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move, Amendment No. 9, in page 13, line 44, after the first "the", to insert "written".
This Amendment is also designed to meet a point that was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins).
The effect of subsection (2) is to limit to certain strictly defined cases the disclosure of returns or other information furnished or obtained in pursuance of a requirement imposed by or under a scheme under Clause 16. Subsection (2,a) of Clause 17 permits this disclosure
with the consent of the person by whom the information was furnished.
The point made by the hon. Gentleman was that to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding under this Clause, subsection (2,a) should refer to disclosure with the written consent of the person by whom the information was furnished.
I undertook to consider inserting "written" into the subsection. The Amendment gives effect to that undertaking, and I hope that it will prove acceptable to the House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for carrying out the undertaking which he gave in Committee and also for the way in which he phrased his speech just now. The subsection as amended covers the point that I had in mind. There may be confusion or dispute over a consent if it is not in writing, but if it is in writing there can be no dispute about it and all parties will be bound by it. I repeat that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Sir M. Redmayne: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 18, to leave out lines 23 and 24 and to insert:
2 calendar months from the date on which the contract was made".
This Amendment was discussed in Committee, although in a slightly different form. It was one which the Minister himself promised to look at, in rather favourable terms I thought, but he has not come forward with an Amendment to deal with the point. I do not say that in any critical way, because he has been generous in other respects, but, at the same time, I think that it is a point which is worth reconsidering.
As the Bill is drafted, the operation of a forward contract may be interpreted as being for a period of only one day over one month. Indeed, that is really the declaration of the Minister's intent in Committee as he gave it on 23rd February, 1965, at col. 353 in the short speech that he made then. Yet, on studying that speech, it seems that by his own argument he demonstrates that there is too little difference between contracts which are really spot contracts, where for some reason or another delivery is delayed, and contracts which are true forward contracts, for which the fulfilment is clearly separate from the date of the contract.
I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has carefully considered this, but I ask him to think about it again in the sense that if the degree of separation in a forward contract is only one month, as it is practically speaking in the Bill, there is no clear distinction between a spot deal which is varied for some reason, and a forward contract. If the forward contract as described in the Bill is to achieve the object which we have set out to achieve, it must have a clear, separate character of its own.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill as drafted was nearer to commercial practice, but, as I said before, my hon. Friends are not without commercial experience, and they hold strongly to the view that two full months conforms more fully with commercial practice and also much more practically achieves the object of the Bill.
Perhaps the Minister thinks that he has given us too much already, although no


Minister can give too much. Perhaps he has not given just that kind of thought to this point which he might have done. Possibly he reckons that the commercial advice which he receives is better than the commercial advice which my hon. Friends offered him. That would be a dangerous assumption, and I therefore ask him to consider this. It is a simple point. We believe that our advice is right.
The Minister has already been forthcoming, and he might accept the Amendment. I think that by doing so the Bill will be still further improved.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) has been reasonable. I discussed this during the Second Reading debate. Here we are dealing with definitions, and the Clause deals really with the definition of forward contracts. The Amendment seeks to insert the words:
2 calendar months from the date on which the contract was made.
This is precisely the argument that we had in Committee.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have carefully considered this matter. I cannot accept that the trade takes the view taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am advised that this is not so. Indeed, I stressed this over and over again during the Committee stage of the Bill. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have looked at this very carefully. I assure him that I am not trying to dodge the issue. After all, this is not a point of principle as such. It is a point which deals with how the Authority shall operate, and the right hon. Gentleman has explained that it is intended to meet the criticism which was made in Committee.
As I have said, I have looked at this matter very carefully, and perhaps I might just repeat some of the arguments which were put forward. The Government's intention is to define a forward contract as a contract whose date of fulfilment falls in the next calendar month but one after the date on which it was made. The Amendment will defeat this intention because if it is accepted a forward contract would become a contract whose date of fulfilment fell more than two calendar months after the date on which it was made. That is what is

would mean, and it would be subject to the same objection as the Amendment proposed in Committee.
I remember the Amendments that were moved. In that it would fix the commencement of delivery from 14th January—as in the example I gave in Committee—if the contract was signed on the previous 14th November, by specifying a date halfway through the month it would run counter to trade practice. which deals with calendar months as a whole. It would be possible to draft an Amendment to give effect to the intention of the mover, and I have considered carefully whether this should be done. However, after all the advice I have taken I have come to the conclusion that this should not be done.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Prior: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the care that he has taken and for the conciliatory attitude he has adopted towards the Amendment. He has taken a great deal of trouble to ascertain the views of the trade. We felt that the period of five weeks which could apply in the case of a forward contract was not long enough to justify taking out such a contract, but in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and the fact that the trade wish forward contracts to operate from calendar month to calendar month it would be better to stick to the drafting of the Bill.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. These forward contracts are very important. What happens if a farmer breaks such a contract? Perhaps on Third Reading, if not now, we might hear from the Government what happens if a forward contract is broken.

Sir M. Redmayne: I do not seem to have quite the unanimity on this point of which I previously boasted. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 20, to leave out lines 42 to 44 and insert
but may, nevertheless, he taken into account for the purpose of constituting a quorum of the Authority".
In Committee, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) moved an Amendment similar to this


one. He wanted to delete sub-paragraph (2,b). He said that he could imagine that all the trade members of the Authority might be interested in a contract, either directly or indirectly, and that it was possible that the entire trade side of the Authority might have to withdraw. He felt that this would be an insuperable difficulty in the way of the smooth working of the Authority.
I said that we would consider the matter before Report. We appreciated that there might come a time when so many people were involved in a contract that was being discussed by the Authority that a quorum would not be available, and the proceedings of the Authority would be held up. I promised to see whether we could devise words which would give the meaning of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member, plus some protection for the Authority so that everything would appear to be absolutely fair and above board while, at the same time the Authority was given the power to continue to do its work.
It is to meet the point of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member that we have put down this Amendment. It is to the same effect as that Amendment, except that instead of simply leaving out the words
shall be disregarded for the purpose of constituting a quorum of the Authority for any such deliberation or decision",
it replaces them with words stating unequivocally that a member who has made a disclosure of interest may be taken into account for the purpose of constituting a quorum. This avoids any possible uncertainty.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing forward the Amendment, which fulfils the undertaking which he gave in Committee. I agree that it is much better to put the matter in a positive way as in the Amendment, rather than to leave it out. This was a real difficulty which could have arisen with an Authority which had so many trade members on it who might be indirectly concerned with a contract.
I am still sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to take into account the other point that I made in Committee concerning the words "indirectly interested in". They take the matter extremely wide and involve almost

every trade member on the Authority. If we interpret the words strictly it is clear that they are almost certain to be indirectly interested in almost every contract made in the trade. Therfore, the members will be involved and to a certain extent debarred.
I asked the hon. Member to consider the matter bearing in mind the fact that members can sit and be part of a quorum as well as carrying out other functions. I appreciate they can now be part of a quorum, and the Authority can get on with its work. I hope that the hon. Member will think about the other point that I made, which is wide of the Amendment but still very relevant to ths general issue.

Mr. Hoy: As I promised the hon. Member, I went into this matter. There is no doubt that the question of indirect interest in a contract raises a much more difficult issue. I am advised that when the Authority is considering a certain contract for the purchase or sale of cereals, representatives of trade interests on the Authority who were concerned, in their private capacity, with the purchase or sale of cereals might be deemed to have an interest. Similarly, representatives of growers on the Authority who had grain of their own to sell could also be regarded as having an indirect interest in a certain contract for the purchase of cereals.
However, I do not think that this need militate against the efficient conduct of the Authority's business where it is concerning itself with a certain contract. The point is that even if members of the Authority are precluded by the provisions of the paragraph from taking part in any deliberation or decision about a certain contract, it should nevertheless be possible to take them into account for the purpose of constituting a quorum, so that the Authority can take decisions on matters before it. This was the principle behind the Amendment which was moved in Committee, and it was because of that that I have implemented the undertaking that I gave.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(DETERMINATION OF PRICE FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 9.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, page 22, line 27, after the first "the", to insert "average".
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed, at the same time, Amendment No. 16.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Willis: The Amendments are consequential upon the acceptance by the Government of a number of Opposition Amendments on Clause 9 in Committee. As originally drafted, the Clause imposed restrictions—dependent on the level of market prices—on the exercise of the trading powers conferred on the Authority by an order made under Clause 8. It empowers the Minister to make provision in regulations as to the way in which market prices are to be determined.
In practice, these would be average market prices, and the effect of the Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite was to provide specifically for this. It will be seen that paragraph 4(2,b) of Schedule 2 refers back to Clause 9 and we need to have references to the average market price to conform with that Clause, as amended. That is the purpose of the Amendments which will I hope commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the Minister and I am glad that he has mastered his brief so well as to be able to give such a clear explanation. These are purely drafting Amendments following the acceptance by the Government of Amendments moved from this side of the House at an earlier stage. I am grateful to the Government for doing the drafting corrections which the acceptance of those Amendments made necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 28, leave out "the market" and insert "that".—[Mr. Willis.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO LEVIES.)

Amendment made: In page 23, line 10, at end insert:
together with proposals as to—

(a) the kinds of home-grown cereals in respect of which a supplementary levy should be raised, and
(b) the apportionment of the amount specified in the supplementary estimate as between those kinds of home-grown cereals".—[Mr. Peart.]

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has been carefully scrutinised in Committee where a number of Amendments were made. Most of the further Amendments which have been agreed during the Report stage follow on points which were raised during the Committee stage. This illustrates the contribution which hon. Members on both sides of the House made to the deliberations on the Bill. At the same time, they show that the Government have displayed a reasonable and receptive attitude throughout. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have the approval of hon. Members opposite. The Government have been very reasonable.
Although the Amendments are important and have undoubtedly improved the Bill, the main structure has remained substantially unchanged. The Bill was generally welcomed when it received its Second Reading. There was a unanimous desire on the part of all hon. Members to see it complete its stages and that we should create a Home-Grown Cereals Authority and go forward towards the more orderly marketing of home-grown cereals. Closer examination has confirmed the view held by hon. Members on both sides that the principles on which the Bill is based are sound and that its detailed provisions to give effect to them are reasonable and practical.
At this stage of the Bill's progress I wish only to emphasise a few main points. We must recognise that the success the Bill will achieve depends very largely on a continuation of the co-operative efforts made by the representatives of the producers and the various sections of the trade which led up to the agreement last September on which the Bill is based. I think that we can achieve that partnership. That is why I was anxious, during the Report stage, to stress its importance and the need to allow the Authority to do its job quickly.
In legislating for the establishment of the Authority, we are providing for representation of all the interests directly concerned with the production, marketing and first-hand processing of homegrown grain, together with a nucleus of independent members. A great deal of responsibility will rest on their


shoulders and I intend that we should get the best men that we can for the job.
It follows that if we have the right men and representatives of the various sections of the trade who can co-operate in bringing their expertise to bear on the problems of cereal marketing, we shall leave the Authority with a reasonable degree of discretion in the exercise of its functions. Throughout the Committee and Report stages I have pressed that we must give the Authority a measure of responsibility to enable it to do its practical job. With the properly balanced representation for which the Bill provides there should be no fear that the Authority will act in an arbitrary or irresponsible manner.
The Authority will be empowered, upon its establishment, to carry out the important non-trading functions provided for in Part 1 of the Bill. Its powers to encourage the development of forward contracting by means of financial incentive and arrangements for loans to growers and to promote better marketing intelligence, research and demonstration and improvements in trade procedures should be of the greatest value. Then there are the reserve trading powers for which provision is made in Part II of the Bill. We have had arguments about matters of principle and fears have been expressed. Without going into detail, I wish to emphasise what is the true purpose of these powers. It is to help further, if necessary, the matching of supplies and requirements over the year. That is why the Authority will not be allowed to hold stocks over from one cereal year to the next.
We must recognise that although the prices of imported cereals cannot fall below the level of our minimum import prices, it is still possible that an excessive home crop could have the effect of depressing the price which the home farmer can expect to obtain. The Authority's task would not be to prevent that from happening, but to ensure that the farmer gets the best price consistent with the disposal of the total crop. We do not want to start to build up surpluses from one year to another. That would be fraught with danger for both producers and for the trade.
The object of the Bill and the main provisions received a wide measure of support from hon. Members on both sides of the House during the Second Reading debate. We are conscious of the need to improve the marketing of home-grown cereals and there is general recognition of the contribution which the provisions in the Bill can make to meeting that demand. The Authority will have many problems, but I believe that it will be able to count on the wholehearted co-operation of all the interests concerned. Both in its composition and powers the Authority will be well equipped to carry out its task. For all these reasons, I commend the Bill to the House with every confidence.

6.19 p.m.

Sir M. Redmayne: I suspect, as I have often been heard to mutter in these last years, that Third Reading debates on non-controversial Measures, or Measures which are not very controversial, often take up more time than perhaps they should.
I should like to elaborate a little further the point made during the Report stage discussions by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) regarding the fact that there has been some criticism in the farming Press and elsewhere that the Bill was unduly delayed by the criticisms of members of the Opposition during the Committee stage.
If I may say so, this shows a considerable lack of appreciation of the function of Parliament. I think that we are all agreed that there has not yet been a Bill brought into this place, however uncontroversial, which was not amenable to sensible amendment. There is no question at all that this has been proved by the fact that the Minister, as he has said himself, has brought forward most useful Amendments, based on points raised in Committee. Our critics from outside might think it strange that a Bill conceived by one party and given birth to by another could yet be subject to amendment, but it is not strange to us who know this place. We can only pray that we have not left in it a fault, not yet discovered, which may prove to give rise to difficulty at a later stage.
It is perhaps not irrelevant to what I am saying to say that the same sort of worry from outside came to my attention today in another connection. I was


rung up by a constituent this morning who was anxious because he had understood that the Government would shortly be defeated on this day on the Plant Breeders' Regulations. I hastened to assure him that, much as I would like to defeat the Government, I did not regard this as a suitable issue and I hope that I set his mind at rest.
I think that it has been acknowledged often enough on both sides of the House—with varying generosity, but nearly always with generosity—that the possibility of legislating on agreed lines in the Bill was greatly due to my right hon. Friend, the Minister's predecessor, but that does not detract from our pleasure that the Minister himself has shown that he knows a good thing when he sees one.
As I have said, I have studied the OFFICIAL REPORT Of all the stages of the Bill with more care than I have given to any other matter in this House for a long time. I noticed that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) made some discouraging remarks on Second Reading. As far as I know, he has not been seen since in connection with this matter. What amazed me was that in reading this speech, I found in his approach something very familiar. It may well be that Caithness and Sutherland produces in all its representatives the same slightly carping attitude of criticism which was so much my concern in past years when I sat on the Government Front Bench. I would only say to the hon. Member, if he were here, that we shall look forward to the next election, to see what that will bring forward from that quarter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. The hon. Gentleman is an exceedingly experienced Parliamentarian. He knows that he is outside the scope of the Third Reading debate.

Sir M. Redmayne: I am a good deal out of practice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I beg your pardon. Fortunately, I have finished that point.
We believe, all of us, that this is a good Bill. Of course, the proof of it will be in the working of it, and perhaps the real proof of its excellence will be that Part II does not need to work at all. That is an optimistic outlook, but it would be satisfactory that it should be

so. Equally, it may be a pattern by which we shall set our course for other commodities, although I would suspect that, in respect of other commodities, our future task of legislation may be even more complicated than they have been in this case.
At least, it may be said that we in the House have done our best by the Bill, and when the other place have done with it we will wish good luck to those whom it is designed to serve.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: It it with pleasure that I rise to speak after the progress of the Bill to its Third Reading. The whole purpose of the Bill is to enable more orderly marketing of home-grown grain and I think that the industry welcomes this step. As one who, at one time, was a farm worker, I have vivid recollection of the days when we used to store our grain in the stacks, but when the combines came, the whole pattern changed. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with the problem which, in years gone by, never existed—the flooding of grain on to our markets at harvest time. This was largely due to the introduction of the combine and the fact that so many farms had little storage capacity.
The principle of the Bill, as has been said on Second Reading and in Committee as well as today, is one which was agreed last September among the agricultural industry, the trade and the Government of that period. One has often heard the expression used that the Bill was "fathered" by the Opposition. Being on the Committee of the Bill was a new experience for me. It was the first Standing Committee on which I had been privileged to serve.
I must confess that, at times during our debates, I thought that the Opposition, though accepting fatherhood of the Bill, must have felt that the Bill was something of a weakling. Certainly, the discussions which took place covered a very wide range. At times we were talking about rat catchers and mole catchers, which were far from the subject of cereal marketing. However, this was a new experience for me and I suppose that one has to become accustomed to a wide range of discussion taking place when a Bill goes through Committee.
I am aware of the fact that, during the early sittings of the Committee, there was considerable criticism by representatives of the National Farmers' Union about the delays which occurred. On more than one occasion, I had it put to me that perhaps the Opposition were filibustering. I do not think that that was the intention of the Opposition. I believe that they deliberately entered into the spirit of the terms of the Bill with a determination to aid its progress, to simplify it, as far as possible within legal jargon, and, at the same time, to improve it by various Amendments—though there were periods when, as a new member of the Committee, I felt that a good deal of time was being wasted.
Nevertheless, on reflection, I think that we must agree that the Bill has been improved as a result of discussions between both sides in Committee. It is true that my own contribution in Committee was limited to two or three points, but this was due to the fact that I wanted to be very careful of procedure, as a new Member, and, in the course of time—if I served on a Committee again—to know the procedure which is followed when a Bill goes before a Standing Committee.
I am hoping that my right hon. Friend will, in due course, introduce further Measures which will cover other aspects of our agricultural industry. I, also, regard the Bill as being somewhat weak. I should have liked to have seen set up a commodity commission for the cereals which are produced on our farms. I think that the success of the Bill will largely depend on imports. I should have liked to have seen regulations brought within the terms of the Bill to control a measure of imports. I recognise, however, that the Bill did not set out to achieve that. It was a Bill of agreement between the industry and the trade, and, as such, we have to accept its limitations. However, I hope that in new legislation which I am sure my right hon. Friend will be introducing in due course—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt a new hon. Member, but, on Third Reading debates, he must only speak of the Bill to which we are giving a Third Reading, and not of other Bills in which he is interested.

Mr. Hazell: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I merely wanted to stress the point that I should have liked the Bill to be wider in concept. I hope that that point will be borne in mind in future.
So far as the Bill is concerned, the principle of loan payments and loans in respect of forward contracts will help to do something to spread the load on the market, and, as such, it ought to assist the agricultural industry considerably. Agriculture is a great industry and its achievements have been recognised. I hope that the Bill will further expand the production of cereals. The knowledge that the machinery is there to be used will encourage farmers to step up their production even higher. I hope that the Bill will succeed in doing it.
When the Minister is making his appointments from agriculture and the trade to the Authority I hope that he will recognise the place of the agricultural worker. My right hon. Friend has the right to appoint three to five representatives. I ask him to consider very seriously that at least one of those appointments should be representative of the workers in the industry.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill forward and, with his Parliamentary Secretary, in piloting it through the Committee and the House. I hope that it will stimulate agriculture and will be the forerunner of other Measures covering all the produce of our farms.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Right hon. Members and hon. Members will recollect that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) gave a qualified welcome to the Bill, because, while it is a worthy Bill, in our opinion it is not adequate to deal with the wider aspects of marketing.
The aims of the Bill, as I understand, are to arrange more orderly marketing of cereals and to reduce the Exchequer liability. Those are worthy aims. This is not a controversial Bill, because it originated with the previous Administration, and that has helped to give it a smooth passage through Committee. As the Minister rightly pointed out, the success of the Bill will depend on co-operation from both sides of the industry,


including the merchants. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) welcomed the fact that Scotland would have a representative on the Authority, and I add my pleasure at that fact.
I wish to refer to certain aspects of the Bill as it affects the north of Scotland, and particularly the livestock rearing areas as distinct from those areas where cereals are grown for marketing on a large scale. In my constituency we have such an area. In the main livestock areas the amount of grain sold is very small. Under the Winter Keep Scheme all grain qualifying is required to be fed on the holding unless a very good reason can be given for not doing so.
Barley is not included in the Winter Keep Scheme so far, but we are hopeful that it will be included after the present Price Review. We may be optimistic but we hope that that will be the case. We think that barley should be included, because it is being used on an ever-increasing scale for livestock feeding. It is also a fact, and this is very important, that because of high liming and improved drainage on many holdings, barley can now be grown successfully on land where, 20 years ago, only a poor crop of oats or rye could be grown.
Though oats are not included in the marketing scheme so far, they may well be included at a later date. Here I come to the main point, which is the question of the proposed levy on growers and how it is to be imposed. If it is to be imposed on an acreage basis, it will have a very adverse effect on the class of growers to whom I have just referred. There are many thousands of crofters and small growers in my area who never sell grain at all and who even buy in seed for sowing every year. I am afraid that under an acreage levy those small growers would be subsidising the large growers—or that is their impression.
While we do not know at this stage what the levy will be, we do know that under certain conditions it could well be very considerable. That being so, it seems that the only fair way would be to impose the levy on the tonnage of grain marketed. While this might not be as simple to administer, I am convinced that it would have many advantages for

the man whose main enterprise is livestock rearing, and it would mean fewer anomalies all round.
I hope that it will be found possible to make the necessary alterations, if alterations are needed, to cover the points which I have raised. I congratulate the Minister on having brought forward the Bill so early in the Session.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: It is a great pleasure to follow in the debate the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie). Those who have been associated with Scotland in any way realise that the rams which he has produced have made a tremendous impression on the whole of the sheep stock throughout the north of Scotland. I hope that he will appreciate that I cannot hope that his political career will make such an impression in that area.
The Bill is especially welcome in north Lincolnshire and constituencies such as my own, because it will ensure that we shall get the best value for annual harvests that we can possibly get. The forward-buying contracts will be of enormous value, particularly to the large farmers. The Bill will also have the effect of helping the small farmers to get a better market at an early stage during the harvest. We help people through various grants to put capital equipment on their farms, but the trouble is that the one-third grants encourage people almost to over-capitalise.
I hope that the Bill will strengthen the hand of the officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service and others when they advise people that it is not always necessary to install grain-drying equipment, and that, particularly on small farms, it would be far better to rely on the Bill to help the small farmer to get a better return from the market at an early stage.
If the Bill succeeds, I hope that we shall see throughout the farming community a slightly more responsible attitude towards certain contracts. This is essential. We all know that there is a tendency, particularly if the market goes up after contract has been made, to try to discover devious ways of avoiding an unhappy commitment to sell below the current price.
I hope that the effect of the Bill will not be to spread cereal growing to other areas. This is happening at the moment, because unquestionably this is the most profitable type of farming. I agree with what the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty said about livestock rearing. Until we get more livestock in this country we cannot increase the amount of cereals coming forward because we need a bigger head of livestock to eat them. I hope that this trend will be put right in the Price Review.
I could not help noticing, in going about the countryside during the winter, particularly in the Midlands, that there is still a spread taking place of the tillage acreage. I am not certain that this is right under present conditions, and I hope that we shall see the trend reversed. I have seen some lovely old pastures in my right hon. Friend's constituency being ripped up and I hope that we will see some of these pastures retained.
It is clear that we must face up to the strength of the agricultural and corn merchants. They are now in big and powerful groups. They say, therefore, that they want big contracts. However, they also say that they are buying from comparatively small producers in varying lots of varying qualities. These big groups of merchants have made a compromise in the Bill. Undoubtedly more science and research is needed to overcome the difficulty of the varying qualities and quantities coming forward.
Hon. Members will be aware of the newest maltings in Gainsborough. These maltings can take barley of practically any quality to make good malt. This is happening because of the science and research that has gone into the process in this firm, with the result that really reliable malt can be produced from barley of varying qualities. Indeed, we send a trainload of malt from Gainsborough to Perth every night to make the famous Scotch whisky. I believe that they just add a little peat and water to make their whisky from Lincolnshire malt.
With these few remarks I give the Bill my sincere welcome on behalf of the industry in Lincolnshire, which is the principal grain-growing area.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Prior: I wish to add my support to that expressed by other hon. Members to the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) for the remarks he made about the time we spent on the Bill in Committee. I agree that there had been criticism about our having taken too long. It should be remembered that when the Chairman summed up the Committee's proceedings he said what a pleasure it had been to take the Chair, that he had not had to intervene on many occasions and that the Committee had worked well. We could not help it if the Minister of State filibustered in his speeches, as he used to when in opposition.
There was a certain amount of ill-informed criticism outside Parliament, by the Press, about the amount of time we took in Committee. In fact, we took nearly eight sittings, the importance of which were borne out by what happened on Report, when a great many of the Government Amendments were made as a result of the points which my hon. Friends and I made in Committee. I hope that the people outside who criticised our deliberations in Committee will have the good sense and decency to retract some of the things they said about us.
We are concerned with a new and important pattern of marketing and we hope that it will succeed. I hope, at the same time, that the farmers will not expect miracles overnight. I have the impression that the farming community are expecting a lot of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority. If it does not come up to all that they expect straight away I hope that they will no decry it. The Authority will need to take it easy at the beginning. It will need to find its feet and I hope that it will have the support of the farmers, even if in the coming harvest it does not achieve all that it sets out to do. I hope that it will be judged not on its activities over a period of weeks—perhaps during the coming harvest—but over a period of years because it could form the basis for the establishment of other authorities for other products.
One of the tasks which it must perform is that of collecting information, a difficult job for any organisation to do, as is amply borne out by what is happening at present. The reports after the last


harvest were that we were in for a glut of barley. Reports were coming off the farms, from the information collected by the Ministry, that that would happen. We now find that we are, if anything, short of barley. This proves that it is easy for even the best obtained information to be wrong. This is probably because nowadays so much combined harvesting is carried out in tanker combining and it is not easy to assess the amount of grain in store. Thus, the information which the Authority will collect will, for a year or two, have to be treated with a certain amount of reserve. The amount of barley and grain on farms is also influenced very much by the consumption of those products.
I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) about farmers keeping their contracts. I mentioned this to the Minister, to whom I apologise for missing his reply. I had to leave the Chamber, having been handed a green card. It is vital that farmers honour their contracts.
While rereading the Bill today I was struck by the fact that it does not contain a provision in Clause 2 or 3 covering penalties if contracts are not honoured. If they are not, would the provisions of the law in regard to the making of contracts apply and, if not, do we need a special provision in the Bill? I hope that the Minister will answer this question.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), who speaks with such charm, referred to the levy and the question of its being raised on an acreage basis. It is a pity that the Liberals did not see fit to put down an Amendment to that effect on Report, because the hon. Member will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) spoke at some length on this subject in Committee and was supported by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). As we know, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire has far more influence in the present Government than even the Scottish Ministers. That was amply borne out in Committee.
Had the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty joined with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire in tabling an Amendment along those lines he might have managed to persuade the Government

to change their mind. I am delighted that the Government were not faced with such a predicament, although it is something which the Liberal Party should bear in mind.
This is a good Bill. It sets the pattern for the future of cereal marketing and I am sure that all hon. Members give it their support and hope that it will be given a chance to work. All concerned must not expect it to achieve miracles overnight. I feel certain that it goes forward from the House with the best support and intentions of us all.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I hope that I will not be ruled out of order if I mention how much I enjoyed serving on my first Committee. My only disappointment this afternoon is that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) is not in his place. I am sure that he was very close to me in thought in Committee on many matters. That he seemed to think along the same lines as a West Country hon. Member is saying quite a bit.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty spoke today, since he represents the Liberals. I thought earlier that the Liberal Party was not interested in cereal marketing, which would have been something we would have noted carefully in the West Country. However, it took a Liberal who represents a Scottish constituency to put that party's point of view. That will be noted in the West Country.
I welcome the Bill very much and I will deal briefly with the subject of the people who will be appointed to the Authority. I hope that all interested parties would be consulted in the selection of the members of the Authority. It is very important that much time should be given to finding the right men, and those men must be suitably rewarded. Once again, I stress the importance of the need for the small farmers and for the co-operative movement to be well represented—as well, of course, as the country miller. The net must be spread far and wide in order to gather in the best men. I do not wish to be unkind, but I hope that the search will not be confined to the large compounders and, perhaps, the large growers. Though I dare not mention any area in this respect, I hope that note will be taken of this point.
I want the Authority to become a pattern for other such bodies. I know that this has been said before, but it is most important that we all understand that this will probably be the prototype of others. It is, therefore, vital that its composition is right, and that it is made to work. That will mean a certain amount of trial and error, of give and take, and of adjustment as the organisation proceeds with its work. I trust that all concerned will be prepared to make such changes as prove necessary.
I hope, too, that the Minister will make it a very important part of his job to explain the duties of the Authority carefully and simply to all concerned. Trouble must be taken over that, and a certain sum of money set aside for it so that people understand the aims and objects. It is important that the N.A.A.S. is well briefed to explain to our farmers what this is all about. The Press, too, and other means of communication must be enlisted. I do not want there to be any suspicion in the mind of any farmers. All must know what is happening and what the aim of the Authority is.
I hope that the Authority, in spite of possible difficulties, by next harvest, will be under way and able to exercise most of its powers. No time must be lost in getting it started.
Information given by the Authority should be in the very simplest terms so as to be easily understood, and it is to be hoped that this body will frankly and fully give all the information required by the farmers so that they may take advantage of it, and market accordingly. If it is not put in the simplest terms, the information will fail to achieve the results we all wish to see. Information passed by farmers to the Authority must be accurate—that is vital to success. As a farmer, I know well that I have not always accurately filled in returns. When one comes home from work and sees several forms waiting to be filled in, it is easy not to be accurate, but simple forms will help the farmers to be accurate. Farmers will have to accept a certain amount of discipline although, speaking again as a farmer, I know that discipline is irksome to us.
The Authority must also be concerned with imports. The Minister tends to shy away when the word "imports"

is mentioned in connection with the Bill, but it is vital that the Authority knows what is coming into the country. If it knows the timing and the quantities coming in, it will probably be able to give general advice to importers. Perhaps my mind may be set at rest by the Minister on this aspect.
Storage could be a very great problem in the successful working of the Authority, which will seek to encourage and help farmers to store grain, will provide grants and plans for the building of silos, and so on, and will encourage group handling and storage. That will be a very important part of its function, and though I may be out of step with some hon. Members on this side, I suggest that it may well have to provide some storage in the future, or even to hire silos in an emergency. That side must not be forgotten.
On the question whether the levy should be raised on an acreage or on a tonnage basis, I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. In the South-West we have many small farmers, and I still favour the tonnage basis. So much grain is used on the farms in the West Country—quite a lot is still fed to stock. Then there is the farmer who changes his mind and cuts the growing grain for silage because of difficult weather conditions. A levy raised on an acreage basis might be very unfair to small farmers in the South-West, in Scotland and in similar places.
As a West Country Member who represents a constituency with an ever-increasing number of grain growers, I welcome the creation of the Authority and wish it every success. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the few points that I have mentioned.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I should like, first, to refer to a remark made by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) about the complexity and the number of the forms with which farmers have to contend at present. I join him in his plea that any forms that may be issued on behalf of the Authority should be couched in simple language and produced in as simple manner as possible, so that it is not necessary for a farmer to spend a


goodly part of each day at the desk doing more and more paper work.
I cannot, perhaps, go all the way with the hon. Member in his reference to the desirability of providing the Authority with greater powers. The Authority must first prove itself. When it has proved that it really is a boon to the farming industry, as I believe it will be, we may then consider extending it in some way or other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) raised a plaintive cry a moment or two ago that he was the only Member for a Suffolk constituency who was not on the Committee, but there was not a single hon. Member on it from the great grain-producing counties of Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was not complaining about this. I was merely explaining.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It must have been a privilege to have been on a Committee which produced a Bill which, as has been said earlier today, may yet be a corner-stone in the agricultural industry.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a couple of questions on the working of the Authority. What sort of staff will it have to start with? We must remember that the Authority will be a non-productive element in farming life, rather like the office of the Controller of Plant Variety Rights which we shall be considering in an hour or two. Bearing in mind that the administrative expenses of the Potato Marketing Board are now about £1 million a year, we must be certain that during the early stages of the working of this Authority value for money is obtained and that it is shown to be a definite advantage to the industry. Will the Cereals Marketing Authority be a self-supporting body, or is it intended that it should make its purchases through agents, rather like the Potato Marketing Board, with the aid of a certain amount of Government money, a proportion being found by the industry?
I apologise if one or two of the questions I have put are obvious to those hon. Members who served on the Committee,

but I should be most grateful for an answer to them. While I welcome the Authority as a necessary and desirable step, nevertheless I cannot help feeling that some of the authorities and marketing boards in agriculture at the moment have to some extent perhaps exceeded their powers. One can go to prison if one does not comply with certain rules and regulations relating to the Potato Marketing Board. One can be heavily fined if one disposes irregularly of eggs laid by one's poultry. In addition, the Milk Marketing Board has assumed monopoly powers in the milk industry.
I would welcome this Authority, but before its powers are extended in any way and before it becomes too much of a burden on the industry I should like to see it prove itself in practice so that it will help to develop the farming industry and not dominate it.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that the regulations issued by the Authority should be of the simplest and clearest variety. As a pig farmer I have great difficulty in understanding a great deal of the literature which is issued from time to time by the Ministry of Agriculture. I hope that in this context an effort will be made to see that the forms to be filled are of the simplest and clearest kind.
The Bill is a testimony to the achievements of the British cereal grower. It is not long ago, and I certainly remember it well, since we imported more or less all the cereals we needed and left the home agricultural industry to fend for itself. I am glad that those days have gone and that today we not only produce a large proportion of our own grain, a good deal in East Anglia, but we do it in a fashion that is the most efficient in the world. How efficient it is one can appreciate when one sees in the grain-growing districts new machines, especially fast-moving harvesters.
This efficiency is transforming the countryside, not always for the better. We have wider gates and fewer trees and in many parts of East Anglia we are moving towards having a countryside not unlike the Middle West. There are those who feel that whilst we must move


towards greater efficiency with bigger machines and larger buildings this does not always improve the landscape which people in this country have enjoyed for many centuries. Along with the increasing efficiency of cereals production we are seeing a vast improvement in the efficiency of storage of cereals. I have seen some of the huge dryers used in certain areas where 500 tons and even up to 1,000 tons of cereals are in store. This storage enables the cereals grower to be more flexible in allowing his grain to go on to the market. He is not to the same extent the victim of market forces. Indeed, his storage capacity makes him a force in the market.
It is the extent of cereal growing that has made the Bill a matter of urgency. It is not too much to say that Britain has become a major agricultural nation. Sometimes this is forgotten. We think of ourselves as an industrial or commercial Power and forget that the enormous expansion of agriculture has transformed this country from a basic importer of food to a marginal importer and a major grower of food. If other industries had been able to match the expansion in agriculture and the increasing productivity of agriculture I have no doubt that our present economic situation would have been a great deal better than it is. As a representative of a farming constituency I therefore welcome the Bill. It is a good Bill. It is the best Measure that the Labour Government have brought in. We all know why—it was a Bill from the outgoing Administration.
There are one or two points of a more technical kind on which I should like to ask for the Parliamentary Secretary's guidance. The first concerns the composition of the Authority. There are nine representatives from the trade. There can be no quarrel with that. There are three to five representatives of the public, and there can be no quarrel with that either. However, the nine members from the growing side are to be divided between those who primarily grow cereals and those who primarily use cereals. The precise language is that of those nine
such number as appears to the Ministers to be adequate
shall be appointed as also capable of representing the users of home grown cereals for feeding livestock.
This worries me and my constituents, many of whom are very large cereal growers, because there is always the possibility that that number of the farming representatives on the Authority who consume grain—the livestock producers, of which I must admit I am one—can on occasion gang up with the representatives of the trade and indeed of the public, with the result that the cereal growers on the Authority may find themselves in the minority. I do not contemplate that situation arising, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to underline in his reply that he has no fears on this score. This is a real question among farmers in the Suffolk area.

Mr. Hoy: I should not like that to pass. Reassurance on the point has been emphasised throughout the whole course of the Bill, on Second Reading, in Standing Committee, and again today.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful for that intervention by the Minister and I am sure that it will help to set my constituents' minds at rest.
Next, I have a question about market intelligence. When the Bill was first brought forward we were told that one of its big steps would be to improve the whole quality of market intelligence. This is fundamental, of course, and I go so far as to say that it is probably the most important single operative factor in the Bill. But as I read the Clauses which deal with market intelligence, I am somewhat disappointed. There is nothing in them to which exception could be taken, and I am sure that all the authority for the new marketing people is there provided for, but nothing precise is said about how the information is to be made available to farmers. I asked this question on Second Reading, and I raise it again now in the hope that we shall have a better reply tonight.
Whereas the Authority has power to compile and prepare information and power to disseminate it, the question from a practical farming point of view is: how is the dissemination to be done? Is the information to be sent out by post, in large numbers of new forms each day—the market moves extremely rapidly—or do the Government contemplate that the Authority will use the radio or the newspapers? I am concerned not so much about the compiling


and dissemination of the information for which power is given, but about precisely how it is to reach the hand of the farmer. This is of crucial importance. Farmers do not at present know how the mechanism is to work.
In my view, there ought to be urgency in the setting up of the Authority. I cannot altogether agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that a great deal of time should be taken in finding and selecting the members of the Authority. I agree that the search should be sufficiently thorough to ensure that we have the best men for the job, but I am quite sure that there will be disappointment among farmers if it is not possible soon to name and appoint the members. In my own area there is great expectation and curiosity about when the Minister will be able to establish the Authority, how soon he will "get cracking" on it, and who these estimable gentlemen will be. We are very eager to know the answers to these questions, and, now that the Bill is in its final stages, I hope that it will not be long before announcements can be made. I trust that, in any event, we shall have a functioning Authority well before the next harvest.
I have two questions on Clause 6(5) under which the Authority is empowered to conduct research and experimental work. We all welcome this, but I have a point to raise on paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) provides that the Authority may conduct research in
the collection, storage, conservation, testing and distributing of home-grown cereals".
All those activities are of vital importance, but why is nothing said about the breeding of new types of cereal? It may well be that this comes under the plant testing station and the Minister felt that it would not be right to put it in here, but it seems a little strange, when so much else is given to the Authority, that this is left out.
My second question arises on paragraph (b), which provides that the Authority may conduct research in the
invention, development or assessment of new uses of … home-grown cereals".
This is a very wide power. I wonder whether, under the heading of the development of new uses of home-grown cereals, the Authority might have power

to look into how to use cereals in, for example, sausage manufacture. I do not know whether power to do that is intended to be conferred by this Clause, but it is an extremely wide power which has been given to the Authority.
Undoubtedly, one of the most important steps of the past 18 months in the whole business of cereals marketing was the agreement on agriculture which was arrived at by the six member countries of the European Economic Community. This has been a major step forward, and it will be something which we in this country will live with, perhaps with difficulty, for many years to come. Although this may be somewhat outside the limited ambit of the Bill, I hope that the Minister will encourage those who serve on the Authority to liaise as best they can, if necessary going to Brussels occasionally, to see how the Europeans are managing their cereals market. I believe that the day will come when this country's cereals marketing and, perhaps, all our agricultural marketing will have to be done in co-ordination with that of Western Europe. I hope that opportunity will be taken by the Authority and the Minister to keep in close touch with the Europeans on the whole subject of cereals marketing.
With those thoughts in mind, I strongly welcome the Bill and wish it every success.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This has been a very interesting if rather short debate which has concentrated on the importance of this Measure. We have heard a number of well-informed speeches, mostly from this side of the House, and we have had one from the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), making two speeches now from the Liberal benches throughout the whole course of the Bill so far.
We are all agreed that the procedures which we follow in the House ensure the improvement of any Bill, no matter what it is, and this is most beneficial to all concerned. I have totted up the Amendments which the Government have accepted. They have today brought forward 12 Amendments, accepting the purpose of Amendments which we moved in Committee. It is now a much improved Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) for his very


courteous remarks about the progress we have made and the improvements we brought about in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was, perhaps, a little critical earlier about some of our arguments and the length of our discussions in Committee.
It has been a basic principle that the Bill has come forward as a result of consultations among the parties concerned, that is, the trade, the producers and the Government, in this case the previous Government. Because of the agreement which was reached, the Bill is now before us in this form, and I hope, as my hon. Friends have said, that what has happened in this case will act as a pattern for future marketing advances. I hope that there will always be consultation and that Bills will come forward, after agreement with all the parties interested in the product, in an effort to improve marketing processes. I hope that we shall never have a system imposed for doctrinal reasons against the wishes of any section of the trade or of producers.
If the Bill is to be effective, there must be co-operation from all sides. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) said, if the trade or the growers have any suspicion in their minds, if they start looking over their shoulders, the Authority will have a very hard time in trying to take effective action and to use the powers given to it under Parts I and II of the Bill.
From the outset, the words of the Minister will set the tenor of operations. We all want an effective Authority. The right hon. Gentleman was sweet reasonableness all the way during the Report stage and, as he said, it is the Government's intention to see that the Authority sticks to the agreement reached by all parties concerned.
The main points of the Bill are of great importance and constitute a big step forward. Among the most important are the bonus payments for forward contracts. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) mentioned what happens when breaking of these contracts takes place and I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will answer the point, which is one of substance. As to the establishment of the Authority, we have pressed the Government extremely

hard to bear in mind the interests of the feeders of grain as well as the growers.
We note that the Government have remained adamant about the composition of the Authority. Nevertheless, it is right to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appoint persons of the highest calibre and that their own personal interests and those of the sections they are selected to represent will not have a paramount influence in their deliberations as members of the Authority.
When will the Minister be able to announce the names of the chairman and members of the Authority? Is he hoping to do so within the next few months, perhaps before Easter? The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on this is of substance. Both farmers and the trade want to know as soon as possible who is to be chairman of this very responsible body. I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary cannot give the names now, but perhaps he can give an idea of how soon we can expect such an announcement.
Part I also includes loans to growers and market information. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) made a strong point about this, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Bury St. Edmunds. This is that the information given and received and the form to be filled in by farmers, and the information given and received by the Authority, must be up to date, easy to understand and easily accessible to those concerned.
In Committee, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not commit himself as to the method of publication. He said that it would be available and I assume that it will be made available to the daily Press, the farming Press, radio and television as and when required. Would it be worth while to have a special publication by the Authority in conjunction with the Ministry? I accept that, since there are so many trade papers, this might not help all that much, but I must stress the need for the maximum publicity in the initial stages of the fact that this information is available to the trade and to farmers. Perhaps in the early stages the most sensible way would be to have the information available at divisional headquarters of the Ministry. These are centres known by most of the farming community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds also referred to research and development. We discussed this exhaustively upstairs. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will allay the worries my hon. Friend referred to and assure the House that there will be no duplication of effort, that the N.A.I.R.D. will be consulted, along with various other organisations concerned with pure research and other types of research before any new operation is undertaken by the Authority. It would be foolish to duplicate effort.
Part II is perhaps the controversial part of the Bill and it is a fundamental feature of the Measure that the Authority should possess reserve buying powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington thought that these powers should be implemented at once, but I would point out to him that they are reserve powers and, as such, are not to be used at once. The Authority will want to know how the Bill is operating and what the situation is before it considers using such powers.
If we had wanted to bring these powers into effect at once it would have been simpler to have written them in as a Clause to take effect as soon as the Bill became law. Listening to the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) earlier tonight, I thought that he wanted the Authority to have these trading powers as of right but that he had been overruled by the Minister. It would have been a great mistake to have allowed these powers to be operated at once, for this was far from the agreement between the two sides of the trade and the Government. I must emphasise because this is of great importance, that these are reserve powers.
The powers in Part I surely must be given a chance to operate. The whole purpose of making forward contract bonus payments and loans is to facilitate orderly marketing. If we do not give the scheme a chance to work, there will be no way of knowing whether or not Part I is worth while and is able successfully to operate. I invite the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) to state clearly that the Government hope—I know that he can go no further because the Authority must be independent—that the Authority will

operate the powers under Part I, see how they work and will only ask the Minister for the reserve powers to be brought into effect if they do not and the market goes well below the minimum basic price.
If the Authority does not do this, it will be difficult to persuade the two sides that the purpose of the Bill is to promote orderly marketing, rather than to set up an organisation in competition with them.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to call your attention to the fact that 40 Members are not present.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is out of order at this time. I cannot accept a Count now.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was drawing the attention of the House to the difficulties which could arise from the use of these reserve powers and I was saying that I very much supported the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) when he hoped that the farmers would not expect too much of the Authority in the early days of its operation. I join with him in hoping that it will have a great effect in the longer term and I am certain that it will.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Would I be in order now, Mr. Speaker, in drawing your attention to the fact that fewer than 40 Members are present?

Mr. Speaker: Notice taken—the hon. Member appeals, entirely successfully, to my automatic reflex. No, he is not in order.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Perhaps for the third time of trying I can draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. I hope that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) will not go on muttering from a sedentary position.
I hope that the farmers and producers will not set too great a store by the Authority in the first few months of its operation. I am convinced that it will be of lasting benefit in due course when it has got into its stride and its various functions under Part I—research and development, credit facilities, loans and so on—are in full swing. It will have a tremendous effect on the marketing of cereals and will help with the level of


the prices of home-grown grain and will promote an orderly flow of grain from the farms to the merchants and millers.
I also hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will note that we do not want the Authority to build up large reserves of cash. This was a matter which we did not mention on Report, because the Amendment concerned with it was not called. The Authority could build up such reserves only if it were using its reserve powers under Clause 8, and it might then be in a position to buy at the bottom of the market and sell later in the season at the top of the market, so that a considerable profit would accrue. I do not say that that would always happen, but it could. As the Minister is to supervise the level of the levy at any one time, I hope that he will always bear in mind the level of trading profits or reserves which the Authority may have accrued.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there is any machinery whereby, if the Authority makes a great profit over a period of two or three years, the money can be distributed back to the growers from whom the levy has been raised in previous years? I do not see any authority for that in any provision in the Bill, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can explain.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if it were to be the case that a Government appointed authority made a profit, it would be rather remarkable?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It would be remarkable, but my hon. Friend must remember that that is something which has been negotiated by a Conservative Administration and not imposed by a Socialist Government.
Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to say something?

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): No, I was speaking to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman may have been speaking a little too loudly. If he wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way.
The last point I want to make concerns the use of trade channels, about which we have had earlier debate. I asked the

Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) in that debate and the feelings expressed in Committee. I hope that he will bring to the notice of the Authority the fears of hon. Members and some trade channels that the Authority might use Clause 8, regardless of other considerations, to engage in trading and even the transporting and storing of grain. I hope that he will assure us that that is not what the Government expect the Authority to do, other than in exceptional circumstances, and that in every kind of normal circumstance the Authority would be expected to use the normal trade channels for all its activities, perhaps the storing and drying of grain and certainly the buying and selling of grain.
I am sure that the Bill will be beneficial to farmers and traders. It was conceived by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) and delivered—perhaps that is the right word—by the present Minister. I am sure that it will succeed in its object and I ask my hon. Friends to give it a Third Reading.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: May I express the thanks of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends for the co-operation which we have had in dealing with the Bill. If the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) thought that my right hon. Friend and I were interrupting him towards the end of his speech, I can tell him that we were not. What we take objection to is an hon. Member, like the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams), arriving in the House after having not been here all day, coming in for a minute and seeking to bring the proceedings to a halt. We consider that to be discourteous and we do not regard it as very encouraging when he persuades one or two hon. Members to leave the Chamber in the hope that the proceedings can be halted.
May I say one word in reply to the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne)? I have no doubt that Ross and Cromarty and Caithness and Sutherland have been a little trouble to him. I look back with some affection on the previous occupant of the seat for Caithness and Sutherland and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does.

Sir M. Redmayne: I most certainly do. I did not mention Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Hoy: Considering that the new Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) has some affinity with the Government Front Bench, we have a little affection for him as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), who, unfortunately, has had to leave, for a reason which many hon. Members know, paid a compliment to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). The hon. Member for Lowestoft made his third speech complaining about people who had complained about him. He must not be so susceptible to this criticism. There was no secrecy about the letter. If my recollection is right, I saw a cyclostyled copy of it, and I believe that each of us had a copy. We all get criticised in the House of Commons. While it is not so bad being criticised for something one has done, it is worse to be criticised for something one has not done. The hon. Gentleman made three protests and I do not think that we need go further.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because the corn merchants wrote to me in high dudgeon to the effect that no leak about the letter had come from them. I am interested to know that there were duplicated copies of the letter.

Mr. Hoy: I do not know whether it was in high dudgeon or low dudgeon, but it was so unimportant that I do not know why the hon. Gentleman has made so much noise about it.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) said some nice things and extolled the virtues of barley. If he can send good quality material of that kind which we can turn into liquid production which we can sell at a competitive price and earn exports for Britain, I am all in favour of that. If he wants to link up with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty in this way he has my approbation. I am delighted if he carries on in this way.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft said that the farmers should not expect too much from the Bill. I do not think that people should expect too much of it from the start. When these new authorities are set up we must have some patience

until they get a code of practice. I assure the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that we are not taking powers in the Bill to imprison people. We do not propose to imprison people under the Bill, nor does the Authority, for things which they have not done. There are no powers of that kind in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) spoke about the selection of members for the Authority. Great care will have to be exercised in this respect. We have been asked when we will be able to make an announcement about the chairman and members of the Authority. We must have a little more patience until the Bill becomes an Act. After it leaves this place, the Bill must go to another place, and it would he invidious to anticipate the Act, as it will have to be before these appointments can be made. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there will be no delay on the part of my right hon. Friend in the appointment of the people who will fill these positions. This is terribly important for the Authority, because we have to get it started quickly if it is to meet the needs of the new season. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that this will be done.
The hon. Member for Harborough said that we should use simple language in explaining what the Authority would do. I could not agree more. My Department is not the worst offender in this respect. I could name others which are worse than us. This has gone on for many years; it is not a new development. I have always been told in any Committee with which I have been associated in this House that the great thing is to have simplicity of language so that people can understand what the authority concerned is attempting to do and what responsibilities are being placed on it. This we will do.
On the question of staff, I imagine that the Authority will want a secretary, treasurer and assistant secretary, but it will be for the Authority to make up its mind on what staff it requires so as to operate. I am sure that it will be very careful in dealing with the matter. I agree that we must always exercise care because all too often we see large institutions growing up to do what started as a simple job. The Authority will act responsibly because the money for this operation will


be contributed to by the levy on the growers, and obviously they will want to look after their own cash. This is the best way of ensuring that the matter is dealt with efficiently.
The hon. Member for Torrington and others asked about the collection of information and how it will be disseminated. It is difficult in a Bill to lay down how this shall be done. Every possible means, such as wireless and television, will be adopted to disseminate it so that all the participants in the scheme will know what is taking place. Marketing information is essential, and it should be accurate information if the scheme is to work successfully. I noted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North about the use of Ministry offices for this purpose. This is a suggestion which the Authority might well consider.
I turn once more to what the hon. Member for Harborough said. He asked whether the Authority would receive Exchequer money for use in purchasing cereals. I can assure him that it will not. That is made perfectly clear in the Bill; there is no doubt about it. The Government's share will be for other expenses. I think that I can say that nearly every member of the Committee agreed that this should be so.
On the question of research, it was pointed out on Second Reading and in Committee, certainly by one or two hon. Members opposite, that there should not be duplication and waste of research. We have certain agricultural research institutions which are doing a good job, and there would be no purpose in the new Authority establishing another research organisation duplicating this type of work and possibly at a cost which would place a further burden on it. I gave that assurance before, and I repeat it tonight.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft asked about the penalties provided for in the Bill. He knows that there are no penalties as such laid down in the Bill. If a contract is broken, the bonus is not payable. If there were a break, say, between the grower and the merchant in the event of non-fulfilment of a contract, I think that this would be a matter for the parties and their legal advisers. A bonus is paid on the forward contract. If that forward contract is not fulfilled, obviously the bonus is not paid.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the bonus has been paid, has the Authority power to get the payment back?

Mr. Hoy: The bonus will be paid only on fulfilment of the contract, after delivery has taken place.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is it not desirable that there should be some sanction to make growers hold to their contracts rather than that the Authority should get involved in a costly legal procedure, because the presumption would be that all the legal costs would have to be paid by the body of growers supplying funds to the Authority which, by definition, would be those growers which had adhered to their contract?

Mr. Hoy: I can see the difficulty. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North has just been saying to me, "What you must not do is to give the Authority greater power than it has to imprison people and to impose penalties". Now the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) is saying that I should not pay attention to what his hon. Friend said and that we should put penalties in the Bill. Under the scheme, I should think that the number of people who, having entered into a contract, intentionally broke the contract would be infinitesimal. This is the whole purpose of the scheme. I see hon. Members opposite smiling. They say, "You do not know the farmers". I have a great admiration for them and lived among them for many years on the borders of Scotland, and I am pleased to think that my opinion of them is perhaps a little higher than that of hon. Members opposite. What I do not want to do is to impose more penalties. We are always being told that the Government are taking power to impose more penalties. This can be avoided.
From the beginning, hon. Members opposite have said that the Bill is the product of my right hon. Friend's predecessor. I do not dispute that. All I say is that, having claimed the parentage, they have asked a lot of questions about the child. I hope that the Authority will set out to do the function for which it is established. It is for the cereal grower—let there be no mistake about it—but if it can function successfully it will be a remarkable step forward.
I conclude by again thanking hon. Members who, in Committee and at other stages, have made it possible to achieve what we hope now to do—give the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — WATER RESOURCES (THAMES CATCHMENT AREA)

7.51 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I beg to move
That the Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in Thames Catchment Area) (Amendment) Order 1965, dated 15th February, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
The Order that I am inviting the House to approve makes two simple amendments to the Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in Thames Catchment Area) Order, 1964. Briefly the background is this. The Water Resources Act, 1963, brings about on 1st April this year a direct transfer of functions from river boards to new river authorities. In addition to the land drainage, prevention of pollution and fisheries work of the river boards, the river authorities will carry out the new water conservation and management work provided for by the 1963 Act. In the Thames catchment, as also in the Lee catchment, there has been no river board as such. The existing jobs have been done by the Thames Conservancy, a special body with powers adapted to the special needs of its area. Special arrangements were, therefore, made by the last Government, in the Order now being amended, to enable the Conservancy to carry out also the very important new water resources functions.
Apart from giving those new functions to the Conservancy, the Order reconstituted the board, so that the basis of its membership became the same as that of

river authorities—a bare majority of members appointed by the county, county borough and London borough councils on which the Conservancy precepts, together with ministerially-appointed members knowledgeable in respect of public water supply, industry, agriculture, land drainage, navigation, and the recreational use of the Thames. The Port of London Authority also appoints a member.
While the original Order was before the House, it was put very strongly to the then Minister that the Greater London Council would have such a great interest in the works of the Conservancy that it was highly desirable that it should have membership, as the London County Council has done in the past. The London County Council and the Greater London Council both pointed to the great recreational importance of the Thames to the citizens of London, and to the effect that abstraction from underground sources, which the Conservancy is to control, could have on the flow in the London rivers, other than the Thames, where the Greater London Council will be responsible for preventing pollution.
The then Minister decided, and in this I fully agree with him, that it was right to provide for a Greater London Council member on the Conservancy and he gave an undertaking that an amending order would make provision for this. The Order now before the House does just this.
The principle that river authorities should have only a bare majority of local authority members is being followed out in these special cases of Thames and Lee. Therefore, in amending the 1964 Thames Order by adding a Greater London Council member, provision is being made for an additional ministerial member. There is no case for disturbing the numbers and balance of those appointed in respect of land drainage, farming, public water supply and industry.
We have decided to make provision for a member who has a good knowledge of fisheries, an interest previously not represented except by the member appointed by the Minister of Transport after consultation with those concerned with the Thames as a place of recreation. The Thames is a great place for anglers,


and the direct appointment of a person qualified on this side will be useful.
The amending Order also makes good something that was left out of the 1964 Order. That Order of 1964 applied, to the Thames Catchment Area, Section 128 of the Water Resources Act, 1963, which exempts from the general restrictions on the taking of water anything done under a "drought" order—that is, an order which my right hon. Friend can make under the Water Act, 1958, when it is necessary—because of exceptional shortage of rain—to allow water undertakers to do something outside their normal powers. So far as the Metropolitan Water Board is concerned, these orders do not apply to their abstractions from the Thames. The equivalent is an emergency order under Section 167 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932. These orders obviously ought to benefit from the same saving as the drought orders under the 1958 Act. The 1964 Order did not give it to them: the amendment Order does.
To sum up very briefly; first, the Order fulfills an undertaking given by the previous Government to see that the Thames Conservancy should include a conservator appointed by the Greater London Council. In doing this, it is necessary to have an additional ministerial member and in this connection it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to appoint a member who has a good knowledge of the fisheries interest.
Secondly, the 1964 Order included a saving provision which applies at a time when drought orders under the Water Act, 1958, are in operation. This did not meet the needs of the Metropolitan Water Board, but this amending Order does so by extending the saving to emergency orders made under Section 167 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932.

7.58 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: I should like to say a brief word of welcome to the Order, first, because, I should explain, I have the honour to be Chairman of the Thames Conservancy and I look forward with pleasure to the Greater London Council being represented on the board. We have in the past

enjoyed the company of a representative of the London County Council. We are glad that although we are to lose the distinguished membership of Mrs. Bentwich we will have a member from the Greater London Council, which will have strong interests in the River Thames.
In saying that I welcome, also, the new appointment by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I should like to make the point that although, as a matter of form, it looks well to have an appointment, directly made, of one qualified in respect of fisheries, a number of members of the board as now constituted are experts in fishing in one way or another and we take good care of fisheries on the river, both coarse and fly fishing.
The Minister has made the point that paragraph (3)(b) of the Order extends the 1964 Order so that Section 167 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932, continues to be effective. That might be an extremely important Section this year because, unless my memory is at fault, that is the Section that gives power, by order of the Minister, for the Conservancy to reduce the flow over Teddington Weir. The normal statutory requirement is that we should allow 170 million gallons a day to flow over Teddington Weir to give a good flush out in the Port of London Authority area.
If the flow of the river is low and the Metropolitan Water Board needs extra water, it is possible, by order, to reduce the statutory flow to replenish the board's reservoirs. I imagine that that is the effect of the Order. I therefore congratulate the Minister on making provision for it in a year which already shows signs of being, perhaps, dangerously dry. We hope that the rain may come during the coming months and make up some of the deficiencies of the winter months and that these dangers will not materialise. In any event, I am glad to welcome the Order.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I only want to add my few words of welcome, and indeed thanks, to the hon. Gentleman, because the Order fulfils an undertaking which I gave some months ago from that Box. I am delighted that the Order has been brought forward.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said, there


is a strong case for the special interest of the G.L.C. in the River Thames, and the representative of this great Council will be a great asset to the Conservancy. As one has to have a balancing Ministerial member, I think that it is right that there should be somebody with a special interest in fishery. Many of the present members have that interest, but a large number of anglers who are interested in the Thames have felt that without a specific appointment they have been somewhat under-represented. I hope, therefore, that this will be a valuable addition to the Thames Conservancy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Thames Conservancy (New Functions of River Authorities in Thames Catchment Area) (Amendment) Order 1965, dated 15th February, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PLANT VARIETIES

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25th February],
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Plant Breeders' Rights (Fees) Regulations 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 66), dated 20th January, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th January, be annulled.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Question again proposed.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I should like, first, to thank the occupant of the Chair at the time for being so courteous as to adjourn the debate on 25th February to give us a further opportunity this evening of putting forward several points for examination. I should like to take this opportunity to thank also the hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for having been so courteous and considerate as to send to those Members who were interested in the debate his summary of some of the answers to the points which were raised.
When I was speaking on 25th February, I raised one or two points in con section with the Controller and his staff. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to answer them, and there are a couple of other points which I propose to make now. First, it seems to me that there has been a long delay in bringing

into operation the first two Regulations under the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act of 1964. This Act enjoyed its Third Reading on 23rd February, 1964, and received the Royal Assent on 12th March, 1964. Thus, almost a year lapsed before we received the first two Regulations under it.
The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who at that time was the Opposition spokesman on agricultural matters, gave a warm welcome to the provisions of this Conservative Measure, and there is not a shadow of doubt that it incorporated legislation which should have been introduced years ago.
The result of our breeders of plants of all varieties not enjoying patent rights has been that farmers in this country have utilised few home-bred cereals, especially wheat and barley. We have one or two excellent home-bred oats, developed largely at Rothamsted, but most of our wheat and barley is developed on the Continent, and exported here and used by our growers. This has happened solely because our growers, not only of cereals, but of a variety of plant life, have not, until the introduction of this Measure, enjoyed protection from pirating by their competitors.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that the Government will now get a move on and get this scheme under way. For instance, has the procedure under Schedule 5 begun to operate? Is there an initial register of seeds in use at the moment? As the hon. Gentleman is aware, one of the procedures for which the Act calls is the compilation of this initial register. Has this started, and, if so, what stage of preparation has it reached, and when is it likely to be completed?
Another matter to which I should like to refer is the Answer which the hon. Gentleman gave in the House on 3rd February when he said that the Act was likely to apply to wheat, oats, barley, potatoes and roses. This answer is, of course, confirmed in item 20 of the Schedule in S.I. No. 66 which we are considering tonight, but can the hon. Gentleman tell me when these different schemes will be published?
Can he tell me, too, what has happened about the assurance given by his


predecessor in the illustrious office which he now holds to the then Member for King's Lynn that sugar beet would come within the ambit of the Act? Has the hon. Gentleman any plans for introducing a scheme for sugar beet? Is it his intention to implement the undertaking given by his predecessor, and, if so, when is the sugar beet seed scheme likely to see the light of day?
I propose next to deal with other species of plant life and seeds in general. Recently I have been having talks and correspondence with a number of people in the trade. They are wondering whether the intention is to introduce schemes for other species such as kale, turnips, mangels, grass seeds, vegetables and flower seeds. They would like to know what the Minister intends to do with regard to these items.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman has received representations from the N.F.U. which has expressed fears about cut flowers. If the hon. Gentleman has not as yet received such representations, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) will inform him of the fears which have been expressed by those who produce cut flowers and who are associated with the N.F.U.
I am delighted to see these Regulations. I hope that they are the first of many. I hope that we shall see the remaining regulations and schemes published at an early date so that we can put some life into the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act. I hope that when he replies the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me whether we have ratified the International Convention on Plant Breeders' Rights, and, if so, whether it is in force.

8.8 p.m.

Sir Martin Redmayne: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in thanking the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in sending detailed answers to hon. Members. The trouble is that those answers do not get on the record. If we wanted to put them on the record by talking about them tonight as well as by referring to other points we could go on for a long time. I wonder whether he will consider either publishing an explanatory pamphlet about the Regulations or putting out some sort of guide to them, so that plant breeders

generally can understand them more clearly than we do. Possibly—and this perhaps stems back to the parent Act—the fault is that we follow patent law too closely. Patent law, which has to cope with a multiplicity of inventions, both professional and amateur, has to be a good deal more complicated than is necessary in respect of this matter.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who is unable to be here but who I believe has spoken to the hon. Member, is very grateful for the reassurance contained in the letter that
no far-off tribunal will take decisions closely affecting somebody in Scotland.
That will warm all Scotsmen's hearts. I want to make one or two points on the letter addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who has exhausted his right to speak. My hon. Friend asked what progress was being made with the schemes for various commodities. In a previous debate I referred to the fact that this Prayer appeared to arouse apprehensions in the breasts of some breeders. I have had this put to me in another form, in the sense that the fact that we have prayed against the Order and have properly asked for information has delayed the rose scheme. Will the hon. Member categorically deny that this quite proper Parliamentary procedure has caused any such delay?
My hon. Friend also expressed uneasiness about the term "substantial interest" which is included in the parent Act. He wondered whether it was a sufficiently precise definition. The fact that it is not more closely defined may increase the number of appeals made under Regulation No. 9. Perhaps the hon. Member will consider that point.
My hon. Friend also referred particularly to the fee necessary for representation on the Authority. I will come to the fees Regulations in a little more detail later, but I want to draw attention to the sentence in the hon. Member's letter to my hon. Friend in which he says,
However the Fee Regulations as a whole will be reviewed after two years.
I feel sure that that statement will be received with a sigh of relief by many people who will have to deal with these Regulatinos, because I suspect that they are based too much on existing patent


law and have not been specifically designed for these purposes.
On Regulation No. 11(2), the hon. Member in reply to my hon. Friend said that the Controller would no doubt normally rely on his own tests and trials
but in some cases tests by the applicant could provide useful supplementary information. It is impracticable to be more precise, having regard to the great variety of circumstances which will be encountered.
I wonder whether a limit should not be set on tests which, it would seem from the regulations as drafted, could run almost endlessly.
In respect of Regulation No. 13 the hon. Member's letter said:
In a case where the Controller refuses to extend the period the suspension of his decision will have no effect because if the appeal is delayed the rights might expire in any event. An attempt to avoid this position by granting an automatic extension of rights simply because an appeal was outstanding against the Controller's decision not to extend them would, it is thought, open the door to abuse whereby such a provision could be used to obtain in many cases what would virtually amount to an unjustified extension of the rights.
I put it to the hon. Member that in a sense that provision is surely an abuse of justice, since a delayed appeal would automatically confirm the Controller's decision that the rights should expire. In this case some protection should be devised.
I now want to run quickly through one or two remaining points about the Regulations. Under Regulation No. 18, which deals with the register of plant varieties, I should like to know whether this register is a separate publication from the index of existing varieties which is published in the Gazette. I presume that it is. If so, how can breeders get at it? Is it also to be published in the Gazette? Is it to be published, as it were, as an amendment to the index of existing varieties, or do breeders have to come down to London to see it? If they have to come down to London, or if they have to apply for a copy of it, do they have to pay? That is the sort of point in which they will have quite a lively interest.
Regulation No. 20 deals with the loss or destruction of grants. It seems to me that there ought to be included in the grants referred to a grant for compulsory licences. Regulation No. 21(1) quite properly lays it down that breeders have to give an address in the United Kingdom

for service. I wonder whether there are any organisations in this country which will assist plant breeders—whether they be from the United Kingdom or from foreign countries—in this extremely devious and complicated procedure. In patent law there are many patent agents. Many of us who have an ingenious turn of mind have used those agents to protect our amateur inventions. Plant breeders will need a plant breeders' rights agent if they are to have the same protection. I suppose it is possible that the National Farmers' Union and other bodies could provide such a service, but I am in some doubt whether it will be provided.
Regulation No. 21(4) provides for the way in which papers shall be served. I notice that such documents can be sent by ordinary post. I should have thought that since the penalties involved are in many cases heavy it would be wiser to send these documents by registered post. Regulation No. 23(3) compels the Controller to invite observations within a specified period in regard to any proposal in respect of the rectification of errors and irregularities. I know that the Controller is not bound by any specific time, whereas anybody else covered by the Regulations has to carry out its provisions within a period of 14 or 28 days. I do not see why the Controller should be completely free in this respect. It does not seem to be justice. Again, in Regulation No. 25(1) a period of 28 days is laid down, after which, if fees remain unpaid, applications are void.
It is noticeable that the periods of grace vary from seven to 14 days. I should have thought, although I realise that we cannot amend Regulations, that after some time when they may be reissued, or when the Scheme, having been working for a while, is found to be working not altogether smoothly, it would be reasonable to make the periods more uniform.
I am not clear about the fees. Has the Minister any idea what sort of sums in total are likely to be involved? Has the Controller the right to hold the fees or are they set off against the Vote which supports him? It would be helpful to have an explanation of that. Referring to the question of fees in detail, I think that here again we are at fault through following the patent


procedure too closely. Rose growers find no fault with the overall cost although if one tots up the charges it will be found that the total for a new breed of rose can amount to about £50. They do not think that excessive, but it seems to me a little rough that, although it may be fair to pay £5 on an application to extend, limit, vary or revoke a compulsory licence, it would seem hard to have to pay £5 for each of these. It is necessary to pay £1 to rectify an error or omission in the register of plant varieties, but is that paid only once or, if one or two mistakes are made, does one go on paying?
According to the Regulations Nos. 8 and 9 there is a charge of 10s. every time a representation is made in writing, which means that there is a 10s. charge for putting pen to paper. That will be, if not onerous, at least irritating. Under Regulation No. 10 to attend to be heard by the Controller necessitates the payment of £5, and I am sure that it will be said that one must pay £5 to open one's mouth.
Under Regulations Nos. 21 and 22 to inspect the register of plant varieties will cost 5s. with 1s. for supplying a document of foolscap size or smaller and 1s. 6d. for a document larger than foolscap. Except that one is dealing with patent procedure, I do not think that all these charges are necessary. There has to be some check on the great flow of professional and amateur business coming to the Patent Office, but I suspect that here the charges are not really necessary. I am not in any way being critical or patronising when I say that I think that the Ministry may be working a little in the dark regarding how these Regulations will operate. If the Minister is determined that within a year or two he will look at these questions again and may be ready to streamline the whole procedure, it would be a great relief to the Controller and those who are bound by the Regulations.
We have given the Minister a task in replying to all these points. If he finds the burden of getting all the answers on to the record too great, he might produce a 6d. pamphlet, which would be a great relief to us and the plant breeders.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. John Maginnis: We are discussing these Regulations for the second time in a week. I wish to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) about roses. I have a copy here of a brochure which was sent out recently by one of the largest rose growing organisations in Western Europe, which is situated in my constituency. The organisation is worried because it has been told on good authority that the Regulations relating to roses are being delayed.
The date on which applications have to be made in respect of roses is 11th May, 1965, which leaves little time. Much time has been spent by the producers in preparing brochures and putting their house in order. We may applaud their efficiency, but it would be tragic if the Regulations were delayed, because the firms which have produced varieties for the market and had their brochures and catalogues printed would lose considerable sums of money.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us an assurance that the discussion on these Regulations will not delay the production later of the Regulations relating to roses.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) and to draw an analogy with patents. The fees for taking out patents are remarkably low. I am sure that this is to encourage people of moderate means to patent inventions rather than to rely on secret processes, so that everyone may see the information available in a particular kind of manufacture. The same should be true in respect of plant breeding. The fee in respect of patents is only £1, but on application for a grant of plant breeder's rights the fee will be £10, which seems a remarkably greater amount.
The second point is that when a patentee has patented his invention, if he is a man of moderate means, for the next few years he tries to put it into commercial production, and the fees for renewing the patent are comparatively small—I think about £1, or perhaps as much as £2. But, in the case of plant breeders' fees, on the grant of plant


breeders' rights, £20 has to be paid. Also, under Regulation No. 14, there appears to be an annual fee of £25, while, under Patent Rules I think that it is only £1.
This seems to me to be likely to discourage the small man in this art, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why these fees seem to be so remarkably high.

8.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): As the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) said, this is a fairly big job which the House has given me, to try to answer all the points which have been raised, and I am grateful to him for his sympathy. Also, although any reply by letter and question and answer last week—particularly to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)—was mainly to try to help hon. Members who are very interested in this, it was not altogether just for their sake. It was to help myself as well, because as I could see, when the debate was adjourned, that it might come up again, it might have caused difficulties if I had not supplied all the details. It was not completely for the sake of hon. Members. There was an element of self-interest.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was worried about the long delay. He said that these Regulations should have been introduced years ago. I think that he is probably right. Let us be thankful that they have been introduced and not blame somebody for not having introduced them years ago. Plant breeders have not had a fair deal in this respect. I remember the late Donald McKelvie, who produced the Arran potatoes—including Arran Pilot and others—which were such a tremendous help for farmers, and who got no benefit from that at all. I remember that my father, who was interested in the subject, was absolutely furious when he saw that McKelvie had been given only an O.B.E. He said that a knighthood was too little.
I think that the Bill and Regulations are long overdue, so let us hope that we can get the thing going as quickly as possible, but they are not easy. We are often accused from the other side of being a little too hasty and the more complicated a matter is, the better it is

to take plenty of time to see that it is right.
The register is on the way, and there is a good deal of informal work going on behind the scenes with breeders, so that when the various schemes are laid before the House, there may be no delay and a lot of schemes can operate straight away. The Controller has made a considerable number of arrangements with the various plant breeding stations in the country—Scotland, Northern Ireland and, of course, at Cambridge—to carry out tests in addition to the tests which breeders make themselves and for which they produce the evidence. So I can assure the hon. Member for Harborough that arrangements are further on the way than they appear, because of this informal action with breeders, with no pledges to anybody, and with breeders' concurrence.
There is a considerable number of plans at present. I can assure the hon. Member that schemes relating to wheat, oats and barley will be laid before the House on Thursday. Provisions for potatoes are on the way and are under discussion, and those for roses should follow very quickly. We are thinking of provision for peas, beans, lettuce, rhubarb, apples, strawberries, chrysanthemums, rhododendrons, dahlias, sweet peas and some herbaceous plants. I was asked about sugar beet. I cannot give any hard and fast assurance about that, but it will be taken into consideration.
On the International Convention, nothing can be done until five schemes go into operation. As soon as five schemes go into operation, the question of ratification will be given our full consideration. I understand that no other country has yet ratified that convention. We would hope that it would be done as soon as we get five schemes on the way.
I should like to assure hon. Members opposite and any of their constituents who are interested in roses that we on this side do not think that there is any question of delay over the roses scheme which would hurt anyone at all. They can give that assurance. The Prayer put down last week certainly did not cause any delay, if there has been any. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and I hope that he will be satisfied. He explained to me why he could not be here tonight.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North said that he would like a little more enlightenment about the phrase, "substantial interest". We have to leave a considerable amount to the Controller. This is a difficult scheme. It is a new scheme which has been likened to the patent rights scheme, but there are differences. It would be impossible to include in the Regulations a phrase which would cover exactly what was meant by a "substantial interest". These words can be interpreted by the Controller. There is a right of appeal. I have here a list of the various matters on which an appeal will lie, and I will send it to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.
I thank the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe for his excellent idea that we should put out a simple guide which could be circulated. I was sorry that after bitterly complaining about odd charges of 1s. or so, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should charge 6d. for this, because that immediately abolished his argument on the other matter. Nevertheless, it was an excellent idea, for which I thank him. We will consider it.
I was asked about fees. We shall review the whole question of fees in two years. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) made a comparison with patent fees, but there is a considerable difference between the two schemes. There is a considerable number of applications to the Patent Office, about 40,000 a year, providing a substantial income. This has been well-established over the years. It is not fair to suggest, as yet, that the fees in this respect are too high. In any event, they are being reviewed in two years.
I do not want to go into all the details about fees. I was asked what will be the general picture. We expect that the total cost will be about £40,000 to £50,000 per annum. The early costs will be borne on the Ministry Vote until the scheme is going, but when it is going we expect that over the years the fees will bring in a substantial income. The figures are £90 for a new cereals variety and £60 for a new rose. In view of the tremendous advantages, that does not strike me as untoward for a new scheme. The hon. Member for Harborough suggested that it would spiral up farmers' costs, but

I think that he will agree that the scheme will be of great advantage and will not add much to the cost of new seed.
I know only too well that during more than 30 years during which I have been farming the greatest advantage to farmers has been new seed. That is without any doubt whatever. We have had new barleys, new wheats, new oats, new grasses and many other seeds. Instead of this costing the farmers money, if it encourages better breeding in this country it will be of great advantage to the farmers and will lower their costs.

Sir M. Redmayne: The hon. Member has not taken the point which I made. I understand that the schedule of fees is based upon patent law procedure. I suggest that there is too great a variety of fees. In patent procedure there is a protective screen of fees set up to avoid too many frivolous applications. I fully agree that it is necessary here to get a reasonable income, but it seems to me that that income is very much better obtained with comparatively few fees, by having quite solid fees for quite specific purposes instead of a multiplicity of minor fees for minor applications.

Mr. Mackie: I take the point. There are 23 different fees, but they are all for different applications. These all involve some part of the proceedings, and it would be difficult to charge a common fee and then perhaps pay part of it back. This is different from the Patent Office procedure, because there is a long period of testing in plant production. All this has to be gone through in two or three years. Although there are similarities, and the language is based on normal patent law, we will take those matters into consideration. After two years we would certainly review the situation and, if necessary, amend the Regulations, which would then be brought before the House.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North referred to test limits, a separate register and similar matters. I assure him that all the information—and there will be a considerable amount of it; the index as well as the register of new varieties—will be published in a Gazette and that those two matters, the register and the index, will give separate information.
I was then asked about the Controller giving information and keeping in touch


with people; having their addresses, and so on. This is not an easy matter to decide but, generally speaking, it is necessary for us to have these addresses, particularly when people may be abroad.
Reference was made to the period of 14 days not being enough and one hon. Member mentioned that while everyone concerned appeared to be tied down, the Controller was not. I suppose that that is a point, but we should remember that the Regulations are designed to benefit the people who are getting these rights. The Controller must work a system and he is making these Regulations for their benefit in the long run.
Discussion centred at one point around the question whether registered post should be used to a great extent. I was asked if that system might be tried. Although it states in the Regulations that the ordinary post should be used, I will bear that point in mind.
I have already dealt with the question of the charges. I assure hon. Members that this is not an easy subject to consider because people are bound to say that it costs 10s. to put pen to paper and £5 to open one's mouth. All these are individual actions and they could stop at an early point. As hon. Members know, any Government Department which does not make a charge for matters of this kind is bound to come in for a good deal of criticism, if only for having given away something for nothing.
There are two small points which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North might have noticed in the reply which was given to him. The first was a typing mistake. The number 14 was given instead of 13. The second concerned a question he particularly asked about the Regulations. He wanted to know why persons were not entitled to make representations under Regulation No. 3(4) and why there was no appeal under Subsection 3. He will find, if he studies them, that that is covered under Regulation No. 9, where people are entitled to make representations. I assure him that Regulations Nos. 3 and 9 are covered in that way. I agree that this is a somewhat complicated matter, but I suggest that if he takes the Regulations to bed with him tonight and studies them he will see why it is not necessary to refer back to Regulation No. 3(4) in the same way as with Regulation No. 3(3).
I have not really done justice to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) about there being 25 Regulations in one Statutory Instrument and four in the other, with 23 charges, and so on. I will put the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the Department, that we should issue a sort of child's guide to the Plant Breeders' Regulations and hope that anybody who wants grants will not begrudge the 6d. which is involved.
I hope that, with these remarks, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will withdraw the Motion.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The point that the Parliamentary Secretary has made about Regulation No. 9 underlines what my right hon. Friend has said about trials. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dealing with this matter so satisfactorily. In view of the generally courteous and exhaustive way in which he has tried to cover all the points which have been raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — MILK

8.46 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk (Great Britain) (Amendment) Order 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 77), dated 21st January, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled.
We are here dealing with an Order amending previous Orders laid before the House, the most recent having been laid in September last by the previous Administration. This Order amends basically the Milk (Great Britain) Order, 1962, which laid down the various types of milk, and the conditions of sale, and really only changes the basic price of Channel Islands milk, with one or two smaller changes in the style of presentation.
I should first like to refer to two things that are causes of irritation. The first concerns the sale of half-pints of milk, where the price is adjusted upward by ¼d. to the nearest ½d. above. Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary report any progress in talks with the industry and


the distribution trade for settling this problem?
Secondly, the 1962 Order gave distributors the power to vary their charges in outlying districts, as long as the charge is not unreasonable. The actual words are "demand any unreasonable charge". I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to make any statement about this now but I am sure that, having had negotiations with the industry in an effort to sort out this problem, he will be aware that an abuse has crept in over past years. The emergency facilities contained in the 1962 Order for rural areas have been taken advantage of by distributors in some urban areas as well.
The House will realise that the 1964 Order, which this present Statutory Instrument No. 77 directly amends, removed the description "T.T."—tuberculin tested—and brought in "untreated" as a category. I well remember that hon. Members opposite, then in Opposition, were not particularly happy about the change, and I am delighted to be told that in recent months they have been converted to the use of the word "untreated". I should like to be assured that they are content with it. The difficulties have greatly died down, but I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that the change has been accepted and that there is no further problem in this respect.
Turning to the main burden of the Order, I would say that it is the most extraordinary thing we have had for quite a long time. Here the Government are changing the price of Channel Islands milk and only that. They are putting up the price by ½d. a pint for six months of the year, yet it will not be for six months in 1965 but for five months. I fail to understand the reason for this. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why this should be so. Presumably this rise of ½d. in the retail price is the result of pressure brought to bear on the Government by the producers. This means 4d. a gallon for six months or, in other words, 2d. a gallon on Channel Islands milk over the year. I do not know what fraction of the 2d. a gallon over the year Channel Islands milk producers will get in 1965, as a result of their having it for only five months, as I have said, instead of six months.
This is an extraordinary way of going about the whole matter. First, this step was delayed until 31st January. I cannot understand why this was so. It is no secret that application was made by the producers of Channel Islands milk to the previous Administration. I was one of the people who received a deputation from them as far back as the middle and end of May, 1964, when they applied for an increase in the prices they were getting at wholesale level. They made a very strong case. We considered their case during the summer months when, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows and no doubt will point out in this debate, the cost of production is lower than it is at other times. We considered the case carefully as a serious application from a serious body of producers and we came to a conclusion which I announced in August just before the General Election.
The case which the producers put before us then was that their costs had risen and that the profit from keeping a Jersey, Guernsey or South Devon herd as compared with other herds of ordinary milk producers, such as Friesians, had deteriorated. They found difficulty in making a profit. Producers were going out of milk production or were having difficulty in remaining in it.
These were the representations made to me at the end of May last year. Heaven knows what has happened since. Ever since 16th October when right hon. Gentlemen opposite took office, there have been a great many increases in prices. These increases, including transport costs, have hit Channel Islands producers just as hard as and, it could well be harder, than they have hit anybody else.
I find it extraordinary that the Minister has waited all this time. He made an announcement on 17th December that he had accepted that there was a case for raising the price paid to the producers of Channel Islands milk. When he accepted that there was a case he was not generous enough to implement it straightaway or as soon as convenient. The producers had to wait until the end of January before the rise was effected when the increase came in at the retail level. Therefore there were only five months left instead of six months. Therefore, they were losing on the deal. They were not


getting the full amount which was promised, and they will not have it during 1965. They will be short-changed. This is an extraordinary way of going about things, particularly for a Minister new to his job.
The other important question here is whether the proposed increase is correct. Is the Minister convinced that 2d. a gallon or ½d. a pint is exactly the right amount to put supply and demand in balance? Does he suggest that the putting of this extra amount into the producers' pockets will encourage them to stay in production or increase the supply to the public? One extraordinary feature of the situation is that the demand for Channel Islands milk has been steadily increasing, particularly over the past 6 to 10 months, at a time when supplies have been decreasing. On the one hand, there has been pressure for an increased supply, while, on the other hand, supplies actually coming forward have been decreasing as a result of the pressure of costs operating adversely on producers. Does the Minister imagine that he has found exactly the right amount, this 2d. a gallon for the whole year, to bring supply and demand for this specialised product absolutely into balance?
Frankly, I do not believe it, and this was the reason why, in August last year, the previous Minister decided that after the election we would free Channel Islands milk from price control. I regret bitterly not only that we are not sitting on the Government benches but also that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have not followed the very good advice contained in the announcement which we made at the end of August. This followed directly the lines recommended by the Thorold Committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Thorold Committee recommended that milk should be free from price control by the Government. I do not accept that this freedom should apply to ordinary milk, but, of course, this is not what we are discussing now. I think that it can, however, quite properly apply to Channel Islands milk, which represents only between 5 to 7 per cent. of total milk consumption in this country. It cannot be said that freeing Channel Islands milk from price control would endanger the supply of a basic commodity or allow the public to be held to ransom by producers, distributors or anyone else.
Channel Islands milk is an admirable product on which to start the implementation of that part of the Thorold Committee's recommendations. The advantage would be that not only the trade, distributors and producers, would be able to get supply in line with demand but we should also be able, I hope, to meet the growing demand for this extremely good product in the coming months and years. I gravely doubt that the Government's action in raising the price of Channel Islands milk by ½d. a pint will achieve this result.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us about the forecasts or estimates given to him by his Department of the number of Channel Islands milk producers who will stay in production and increase their supplies and of the number of distributors who are reckoning on an increased supply to the Milk Marketing Board to meet the demand which they know exists among their customers. If he can do this, he will be able to meet his objective of matching supply and demand as well as giving a sufficient reward to Channel Islands milk producers.
In seeking to give that sufficient reward, we must remember that the type of cow he has is smaller than the Friesian or Ayrshire or other types and that the yield of milk over the year except in exceptional cases is nothing like as much as with these other animals. Costs are also heavier.
I cannot but fear that the reason for this Government action stems from remarks the Minister has made. He has said that he has no intention of raising the basic price of milk to the consumer. Presumably, therefore, he has no intention of allowing Channel Islands milk out of his control. Perhaps he has been told by the Prime Minister that he must keep under strict control that part of the cost of living with which he is concerned. Perhaps that is the reason for this scheme.
I am certain that the right way to deal with the problem would have been to free Channel Islands milk from price control. Unless the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is able to give us a very different and far-reaching explanation, we believe that this new scheme will not


achieve equity for the consumer in giving him enough Channel Islands milk to meet his demands nor will it give sufficient return for the Channel Islands producer to allow him reasonable profit and to get his supplies equal to the demand which exists.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I want to talk about this Order from the point of view of dairy farmers in Scotland. I should declare that I am a dairy farmer, although my herd is Ayrshire and, therefore, I am not a producer of milk of Channels Islands quality. I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) about the higher costs which face producers of Channel Islands milk.
This is something that also applies to producers in Scotland, where, with a generally lower temperature, poorer climate and, in particular, because of a very much longer winter, our costs of production tend to be higher. Therefore, if we are to have sufficient supplies of Channel Islands milk it is most important that the price should be sufficiently attractive to producers. I do not feel that the increase contained in this Order is of a size that will help the producers and give them a fair recoupment of their costs. Only if the price were freed could we see a fair return for the producers.
It must be accepted that demand for this type of milk is of a specialised nature. The argument that we should try to keep down the cost of basic foodstuffs does not apply to it in so far as it is a quality foodstuff. As such, the price should be freed so that consumers pay the price that will bring forth the supplies that they want. There is a very big potential of demand for this grade of milk, particularly in towns where, very often, housewives are confined to buying ordinary standard grades of pasteurised—in some quarters it is called "paralysed"—milk and have little choice of buying a better quality product. As incomes rise, housewives will be prepared to pay more for basic foodstuffs and will be prepared to spend more money on produce such as Channel Islands milk.

Mr. John Brewis: Would not my hon. Friend agree that housewives

are prepared to spend more on all grades of milk?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, but I am confining my remarks to Channel Islands milk, which comes more strictly within the Order. There is a big potential demand and a willingness to pay more for quality milk, and if supplies were more readily available and housewives knew that they could get it, the demand would be very large.
By restricting the price of the product, consumption is being held down and anything done to reduce consumption of one of our basic agricultural commodities is a backward step. If the price of the product could be freed, there could be a considerable expansion in this sector of the dairy industry.
Channel Islands milk is one of the quality milks. Under the Milk (Special Designations) (Scotland) Order, 1965, new premium grades are now being designated for Scotland. Many producers in Scotland are concerned that by adopting such a restrictionist attitude towards Channel Islands milk the Government may adopt the same policy towards the new premium grades due to come in later this year.
In this context, I ask the Government to give much more consideration to this matter and to see whether they cannot give more encouragement to those who are prepared to produce this kind of milk, for which there is a genuine demand.

9.7 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds what they want done. First, they complain that the Government have been putting up prices, and now they complain that we have not allowed prices to go up high enough. That is exactly what their argument means and the House had better realise it. Whether it is right or wrong does not matter for the moment, but let us be clear what the argument is.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) make the same plea and say that we should allow prices to increase even more so that production would become more attractive. I shall


deal with that argument later, but I want, first, to reply to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins).
It is true that every time there is a charge of 10½d. a pint, someone will want to know who is to pay the extra ¼d. for the half pint. There is always trouble about half pint supplies of all milks, and even complaints from distributors that it is uneconomic to provide half pint containers. That argument goes on.
Then there is the argument about delivery charges, which applies not only to the Channel Islands milk, but to all milks. In certain areas, distributors impose a charge, as they are entitled to do, because the cost of delivery is greater than it is in normal areas. There are always arguments about whether certain distributors are abusing this right. The argument still goes on and we try our best in the Ministry, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will know, to get people to see reason and to find reasonable solutions to the problems.
It may be helpful to the House as a whole if I remind hon. Members of the background. Under the Milk Marketing Scheme, all milk, including Channel Islands milk, is sold to the Milk Marketing Board at the pool price—apart from that retailed by producers. For many years, however, Channel Islands milk, which is a quality product with a high butter-fat content, has been sold at a higher price than ordinary milk. This has allowed distributors to pay a premium to producers of Channel Islands milk at rates which vary throughout the year.
When this scheme first started in 1950–51, the premium was worth £650,000 per annum. But in 1963–64 it had risen to no less than £3,208,000. This is not an insignificant sum which represents the difference that the producer gets for the production of Channel Islands milk. Over the same period production has risen from 41 million gallons to 108 million gallons. The hon. Gentleman must know that recently there has been no difference in the amount produced, because it has remained at an average of 109 million gallons for the past three years. It is true that in June last year the Joint Committee of the Milk Marketing Board and the Central Milk Distributive Committee asked for the maximum price of Channel Islands milk

to be raised by ½d. a pint throughout the year so that the producer's premium could be increased by 3¼d. a gallon over the year, leaving an additional ¾d. a gallon, not for the producer, but for the distributor.
The matter had not been resolved by the time of the election, although in September the previous Government indicated that if returned to power they would decontrol the price of this type of milk. It therefore fell to my right hon. Friend to consider the Joint Committee's application. He did this very shortly after taking office and announced that on the evidence before him he was not satisfied that the case for an increase had been made out. However, to give the industry every chance of stating its case, he invited it to provide further evidence in support of its application.
In the light of the industry's additional data, and following discussions with the Joint Committee, my right hon. Friend concluded that, to prevent consumers from being kept short of Channel Islands milk, it was necessary to raise the premium so as to encourage more supplies in the winter months. This Order enables this to be done by increasing the retail price by ½d. a pint for the six winter months October to March in a full year.
Hon. Members say, "Why did not you decontrol Channel Islands milk altogether?". Channel Islands milk makes up between not 5 and 7 but 7 and 8 per cent. of the liquid sales of milk in this country. It is no use the hon. Member for Cornwall, North shrugging his shoulders. It is not an insignificant amount. It is a sizeable proportion which we feel cannot be dismissed as a mere luxury commodity.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman said that the price would be increased for six months. Could he deal with the point as to why it is five months in 1965?

Mr. Hoy: Whatever we did this year would not affect this winter. But I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of this increase, Channel Islands milk producers will be £700,000 better off in 1965, which is not an insignificant sum, as I shall show later.
I repeat what I have just said. This is a sizeable proportion which cannot just


be dismissed as a mere luxury product, particularly bearing in mind that to decontrol the price of Channel Islands milk could lead to quite unreasonable increases—we have no assurance that there would not be unreasonable increases—in price if at any time in the year supplies were short. It must be remembered that in certain areas, which admittedly are small, sales of Channel Islands milk represent about 20 per cent. of the supply of liquid milk. It is, therefore, important for those areas.
It is true that the Thorold Committee recommended that Channel Islands milk should be decontrolled. It recommended, in fact, the decontrol of all special milks. It is a long time, over 2½ years, since that Committee reported. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] The hon. Gentleman asks why we do not get on with it. We have been in office only four months. The hon. Gentleman did not do it in 2½ years when he was Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I made the announcement that we would do this. We said that we would free Channel Islands milk from price control. That was announced at the end of August or the beginning of September.

Mr. Hoy: That was two years after the Thorold Committee reported. Not having done it in 2½ years, the hon. Gentleman has no right to ask us why we have not done it in four months. We felt that because these supplies represented this large amount, and in some areas a considerable part of the liquid milk supply, it was not right to introduce decontrol at the same time.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not make an increase of ½d. per pint for the whole year. The fundamental point is that my right hon. Friend, with his responsibilities to consumers as well as to producers, had to be satisfied that an increase was justified before he could agree to raise the maximum price. The House had better realise that this is what he has done.
The evidence which my right hon. Friend considered fell broadly into two parts: producers' costs, because they had to be considered, and the supply position. After careful study, it was found from the available data on production that costs did not provide sufficiently firm grounds

to justify a considerable increase. There has been some decline in the last two years in the value of the Channel Islands premium relative to other milk, but over half the fall was due to the high prices for Friesian calves. It cannot be assumed that the existing price relativities will continue indefinitely. Even without that, I would not accept that a reduction in the relative value of the producers' premium is a good enough reason for making the consumer pay Channel Islands milk producers an extra £1,300,000 a year, which is what it would have meant.
Even before the recent increase, these producers were getting, on average, 7d. per gallon more than other producers. Moreover, we have to remember that in absolute terms they benefited, with other producers, from the increase in the guaranteed price last March. The whole issue turns, therefore, on the supply and demand position, on which many arguments have been put forward about the level and likely trend of production.
Taken at face value, however, the figures indicate that the reduction in output and in numbers of producers has been less than with ordinary milk. For example, there was a fall of 1·5 per cent. in premium sales in 1963–64 compared with a fall in total sales of 4 per cent. Even if, as has been suggested by the industry, the real fall in Channel Islands milk is higher than this, there is no reason to think that it has fared very differently from other milk. Nevertheless, while the amount of Channel Islands milk attracting premium has remained at the same level—109 million gallons—over the last three years, there has not been enough to satisfy demand in the winter months, either last year or this year.
While it is very difficult to quantify the shortfall, we concluded, after discussion with the Joint Committee, that there is a shortage, varying in degree in different parts of the country, in the winter and that this is due primarily to increased demand.
It is a matter of judgment how large an increase in the premium is necessary to bring forth the additional amounts of Channel Islands milk that are needed in the winter. I think the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is difficult to decide. After very careful consideration, my right hon. Friend concluded that an increase of ½d. a pint from October to


March inclusive was warranted. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is equivalent to an increase of 2d. a gallon on average over the year as a whole.
Although this represents less than the 3¼d. a gallon for which the producers had asked, it is worth about £830,000 per annum to Channel Islands producers, who are already drawing premiums worth about £3¼ million. This has to be shared amongst 9,150 premium contracts. The increase represents about £90 per premium contract. This is not insignificant, and will raise the total value of the premium for the first time to more than £4 million. This is a very substantial increase indeed when one bears in mind that the retail price of Channel Islands milk is already 1½d., or 17½ per cent. higher than ordinary milk, and it is to that that this further sum has to be added.
It has been suggested that the increase should have been made sooner. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend can accept responsibility for what happened before mid-October. As I have explained, we made a statement on this matter within weeks of coming into office. By then little if anything at all could be done to help meet the shortage this winter because, to be effective, action should have been taken in the summer. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would dispute that either.
Nevertheless, we thought it right to let producers benefit for the remaining months of this winter. I am aware of some disappointment expressed by producers of Channel Islands milk that the increases were not higher. That is perhaps understandable, but I think that it is perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the position, because, for the reasons which I have given, I do not believe that a greater increase would have been justified. We shall have to wait some months, as others have done before us, before we can assess precisely the effect of the recent award. On the facts as I see them, there is no reason to believe that it will not have the desired effect.
I assure the House that we gave careful consideration to this application and, if one compares the time that we took to consider it, with the time taken by our predecessors, it will be seen that we cannot be accused of delay. What we

were trying to do was to hold the balance fairly, to make it economically better for the producers, and to safeguard also the position of the consumer. If anybody judges this matter fairly, I am sure he will come to the conclusion that this Order is just about right.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I find the hon. Gentleman's reply most unsatisfactory. I think that his arguments are muddled. He kept on talking about the difficulties, which he said we would all appreciate, of deciding whether it should be 2d. per gallon for the year, or 2½d. or 3d. This only goes to underline the point that I made when I opened the debate. It is extremely difficult to know what the exact amount is. I do not believe that the hon. Member is in the best position to decide, with his advisers, how to match supply and demand. It would be far better to leave this to the trade and the producers, through the supply and demand factors on the market.
I do not take the point that the 7 or 8 per cent. of the total milk consumption which is Channel Islands milk is a significant factor which makes it impossible for the hon. Member to free it from price control. He will remember that an alternative supply of ordinary milk is available to consumers, and after the first few months of this winter I do not believe that an imbalance would continue to exist if producers and distributors were able to operate so as to keep the level of production of their herds in line with the demand from consumers.
Neither do I think that the Parliamentary Secretary's argument about producers holding consumers to ransom holds water.

Mr. Hoy: I said nothing of the kind, and the hon. Member has no right to say that I did.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The whole burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the 7 per cent. was that it was so vital a proportion that it could not be freed from control, because 7 per cent. and in some cases 20 per cent. of consumers could be held to ransom. The producers would not behave in that way, and the hon. Member knows it. He said that nothing he could do would change this position this winter in respect of the supply of Channel Islands milk. That is


true, but he could have stopped the drift away from Jersey, Guernsey and South Devon herds to Friesian and Ayrshire herds in the winter months if he had freed Channel Islands milk as we said we would. If he had done that I am certain that we would not have had the drift away from these herds on the part of producers.
Can the hon. Member tell us what happened between November, when his right hon. Friend announced that he would not grant an increase, and 17th December? What significant factors changed the situation so radically between November and 17th December that the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind about an increase? Was pressure put upon him, or did he for once have enough courage to stand up to his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet and insist on this increase? The whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's reply is most unsatisfactory.
In the circumstances it would not be right to vote against the Order. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. If we voted against the Order we would be depriving Channel Islands producers of the small amount that the hon. Gentleman is giving them. We do not want to deprive the producers of what they are given by the Order, but I beg the House to realise that this is a most unsatisfactory way of proceeding. It is not the way to secure Channel Islands supplies sufficient to meet the demand. Neither is the right way to make certain that producers can match the demand. It would be much better to free Channel Islands milk, as being a special milk, from price control, as was recommended by the Thorold Committee.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

9.30 p.m.

Colonel Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move,
That, in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended by the said Act of 1948 and by the Resolutions of

the House of 17th November, 1955, 7th March, 1957, and 17th May, 1961, be varied as from 1st April, 1965, as follows:—

(a) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as so amended (which provides that the annual amounts of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £500 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £700 per annum, whichever is the less; provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £900 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £1,100 per annum, whichever is the less), for "£700" there shall be substituted "£750" and for "£1,100" there shall be substituted "£1,150".
(b) in paragraph 2 of the said Schedule (which provides that the annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £300 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £500 per annum, whichever is the less; provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £450 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £650 per annum, whichever is the less), for "£500" there shall he substituted "£550" and for "£650" there shall be substituted "£700"; and
(c) in paragraph 2A of the said Schedule (which provides that the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £300 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £500 per annum, whichever is the less; provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £450 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees. will bring his income up to £650 per annum, whichever is the less) for "£500" there shall be substituted "£550" and for "£650" there shall be substituted "£700".

I apologise for the length of this Motion. Its purport and intent is very small. The House will realise that in a few weeks' time there will be an increase in National Insurance pensions. Under our existing rules that would have to be taken into account when we awarded pensions or made awards under our scheme. We have thought it right to produce this Motion because we feel that it will be the wish of the House that, if we give money, that is done in our own right and should not be affected by what may be done by the Government for the nation. In other words, someone who is receiving an award from us should not be worse


off because of decisions made by the Government.
To that end, we have produced this Motion. It will be seen that there is no increase in the overall figure, but it allows for people awarded pensions to be no worse off than they would have been in the past. I hope that I may, on behalf of myself and my fellow trustees, commend this Motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (POWERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

9.31 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: I wish to draw attention to the powers of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. I was ruled out of order by you, Mr. Speaker, when after 27 Questions to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on 21st December last year, and in a state of confusion at the Answers given, I did a revolutionary thing and transgressed against the rules of this House. Instead of saying that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I should endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment, I said:
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answers to the last 27 Questions, I beg to give notice that I shall raise these matters again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 848.]
Now that my chance of doing so has come I am not a great deal clearer about what are the powers of the Ministry, but I notice with pleasure the presence of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and that its power, or lack of power, has been delegated to the hon. Gentleman.
We first see the poetic scene where the Ministry has taken over Gwydor House—if I mispronounce the name I hope that I shall be forgiven—the former home of the Minister without Portfolio, which I think would be an apt title for the existing incumbent. When last I inquired there was no internal—telephone directory to the Department. I am not sure about the state of the lift. I understand that at the end of last year there was a staff of 100 civil servants in the Department. From further questioning we find that in

the few months which have elapsed since then the staff has increased by 50 per cent., probably the greatest increase of any Civil Service Department known in this country and I at least can congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Freind on that.
We should like to know what these people are doing. I must be careful not to transgress the rules of order, having already taken some liberties with them on a previous occasion. We know that there is a Land Commission in the making. There are two Parliamentary Secretaries, both very distinguished, Lord Mitchison in another place and a Parliamentary Secretary in this House. So, for three Ministers we have a staff of 152. That means that there are even more Ministers per civil servant than there are admirals to vessels in the fleet. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House frequently talk about the admiral-vessel ratio. I should have thought that this could have been brought to their attention.
Various Questions have been asked both times when the Minister has answered at Question Time. On the question of land use, unless I misunderstood him, the Minister said on both occasions that a study about land use is in progress, but, as yet, there is nothing to report. One cannot necessarily complain about that. One wants to be reasonable. Land reclamation is also a problem. After all, we have a Minister, not of Cabinet rank, for whom a whole Department has been created, so one expects to ask the Minister for a progress report about how he is getting on with the study of land use and of land reclamation, particularly in view of another problem—that the Minister is in charge of waters, but not of rivers.
There is a water supply problem, which, I think, in 10 or 15 years, will be very much more acute than it is at present. I should have thought that he could consider control of barrages in the Severn and in other estuaries such as Morecambe, as well as the matter of land reclamation. I am aware that he is studying this difficult problem.
He should consider land reclamation in estuaries and land reclamation from industrial waste. I put a Question on this point on 21st December. I asked the Minister what powers he possessed and


what action he was taking over the use of surplus railway land. We know that under the 1923 reorganisation scheme, many of the smaller lines were brought together in what we called the four regions. Under the 1947 Act these were turned into regions of British Railways rather than separate railways, so that instead of four railways, each with—I am sorry to see the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) laughing. This is a matter of very great importance. Much surplus property in the centre of these towns could be used to benefit the citizen and land could be released in the centre of towns for domestic as well as office purposes. This is something over which, I regret, the Minister has no powers. It is a matter of great importance and I have noticed that it is one for which the Minister of Housing has responsibility.
The right hon. Gentleman's title, which is difficult to understand, is Minister of Land and Natural Resources. What about the land? What about the natural resources? Questions were asked both yesterday and on 21st December about his rôle. First of all, he was asked about minerals. He made a statement on what he is doing about minerals, and then said that he was not in charge of the Geological Survey. We know, anyway, that he does not control the coal industry, because that is in the hands of the Ministry of Power. The gas industry is also in the hands of that Ministry.
Responsibility for the North Sea, I understand, is divided between the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Transport. Responsibility for sand and gravel is divided between the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the Ministry of Housing. Responsibility for sewage, whoever may want it—it can be called a natural resource—is not easily defined. Sport and the National Environmental Council are matters for the Department of Education and Science. Planning comes under the Ministry of Housing. Land planning and regional planning are matters for the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs who, as far as I can recollect, has not come to the House to answer Questions both

times that he has been first on the Order Paper to answer Questions.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) is here, for he is one of the hon. Members who asked Questions on this subject recently. Five of my hon. Friends from the South-West asked specifically what plans were being developed by the Minister in the South-West. When it comes to regional planning it is difficult to understand what powers, if any, this Minister possesses. I understand from questions asked of the Prime Minister that the Department possesses no powers in Scotland. I am a little uncertain what powers the Department has in Ulster and even more uncertain what powers it has in the Principality of Wales, let alone the Kingdom of Fife, which is ruled out because it comes within Scotland.
Probably the better title, if it is not to be Minister without Portfolio, which is by far the most apt title which could possibly be given to the Minister, is Minister of National Parks. The Minister was asked Questions on this subject yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson), my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), and these are reported in columns 1, 7 and 10 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Minister seemed to have very little to report to the House on what progress there had been.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I asked two Questions, and I was very well satisfied with the account given of a real progress which we have not had for a long time.

Mr. Webster: The hon. Member is always a man—I should say a gentleman, because to call him a man may be an abuse of Parliamentary expression—who is very easy to please. His hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told him,
I quite agree with my hon. Friend. The amenity and beauty aspects here are very much present in our minds.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 2.]
If the hon. Member is satisfied with that assurance, he is very easy to please.
Now that there is a single Minister for Land and Natural Resources, we expect


action from him. I think that it would be right to amend the National Parks Act, about which we are told there will be a statement in due course, and to acknowledge the fact that in respect of the Parks there should be a single planning authority. At present there is a division of opinion between two. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend are always placed in that most difficult and dangerous position in political life—that of being a conciliator and a co-ordinator. If one is in that position without powers, heaven help one. It is the most difficult situation which can arise.
I understand that a review has been instituted. I also understand, although we are not sure of the details, that financial assistance is to be provided. But I am not sure about the powers which the Minister possesses in respect of the National Trust. This is something which would commend itself to the House. Many of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members opposite take a great interest in old properties and old buildings of historic interest. Will the Minister tell me anything on this subject?
There is a reference in column 10 of the OFFICIAL REPORT to the development of forestry land. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West asked the Parliametary Secretary what was the acreage of forestry land to be planted this year. We have a brand new Ministry. We have been given figures for the hundred dynamic days. But the average number of acres planted over the last five years is 59,000. This year, in the great step forward, 53,000 acres are to be planted. We in the South-West are particularly interested to know what the Minister will do to help provide marketing outlets for the inferior wood which is produced. Not all the wood in the South-West is quality wood. We are interested in outlets for chipboard from the South-West. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro is particularly interested in this matter.
On the problem of minerals, Question No. 15 yesterday asked what survey was being made into mineral resources. We were told that there would be an economic survey but not a geological survey because the latter was not within the ambit of the Ministry concerned.
There is then the question of land reclamation and water. Although I do

not see any here tonight, a number of hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies asked particularly about industrial waste land in Wales and what was being done about it. I appreciate that the problem of subsidence is one of great difficulty in the mining areas. I suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that something could be done about this and that action could be taken in areas where it is worth doing something. I agree that we should not waste money, but I hope that he will consider this matter and I look forward to receiving a statement on land use very shortly.
While we are awaiting details of the Land Commission, will the supply of land dry up and is there likely to be a shortage of land for building purposes? I wish to keep within the rules of order and I know that to anticipate legislation would put me out of order. It is commonly known that the real reason for the establishment of the Department is the Land Commission and, in anticipation of it, I mention that in the Bristol region the supply of land is slowing, builders are less anxious to come forward with proposals for developing land and this is creating considerable difficulty.
I commend to the Minister that where local authorities have secured land in anticipation of their requirements—as a result of sound prudence; and many local authorities have been wise in doing this—he should give an undertaking that they will not be penalised for their foresight.
I was not sure how much time would be available for this debate tonight and how far this matter would be relevant to our discussion, but I press on the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the case which I raised with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health about the development and purchase of land in advance of use for a hospital in Weston-super-Mare. It is a matter of great constituency interest to me. I took a deputation from the hospital management committee to the Ministry last summer, under different auspices. I apologise for not having given the Joint Parliamentary Secretary sufficient notice about this but, as I said, I did not know whether I would have time to develop this theme. However, when I asked his right hon. Friend if he would meet a deputation from the local authority of Weston-super-Mare


he declined to accept because, he said, he could find no useful purpose in doing so.
I appreciate that all hon. Members want more hospitals in their areas. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro is doing quite well in this respect in his constituency. We think in my constituency that we have a case. We got an assurance from the former Minister that we would have the right to purchase land in advance of use. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say that he will look into the matter and urge his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to be kind to Weston-super-Mare on this issue.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he recall that land was purchased by the Labour-controlled City Council of Bristol for the purpose of building a corporation housing estate but that when his hon. and right hon. Friends got into power a year or two later they sold it back to private enterprise?

Mr. Webster: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to develop that point. If he comes to Weston-super-Mare I will be glad to show him the property which is at stake. We have hospital problems. I hope that if he comes and sees these things he will be able to put some pressure on his right hon. Friend to help us solve these problems.
I come back to the fact that we have established by Questions that the Minister does not have the powers, but has the very difficult job of trying to conciliate and consult the various Departments—gas and coal, North Sea, sand and gravel, sports, national environment, land planning Scotland, Ulster and Wales. We know what happened when Neville Chamberlain was made Minister of National Service—[Interruption.]—I am being quite fair about this, and as no Liberal Members are present, none will be offended to know that Neville Chamberlain was appointed to be Minister of National Service by Lloyd George in 1916. He was not a Member of this House, but had to try to co-ordinate the various Departments of State. I am not sure whether he was in the Cabinet, but I am certain that he was not an elected

Member of the House. His chances of successful co-ordination were nil, and after 18 months he resigned.
I am not pressing for the Minister's resignation—I am sure that he has done well at the job allocated to him, which is nil. I simply state that we know of no powers that he possesses, and I cannot see how a Minister who has no powers and is not a member of the Cabinet can have any authority in consultation between the various bodies, or where Cabinet Ministers are concerned. How will the Minister knock the heads of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales together? What about the Minister of Housing, and the Minister of Power?
When I came out last week from hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) moving an impassioned Prayer I went out of desperation to the Library to see what powers the Minister had. I looked in a book trough there, and saw "Education Today and Tomorrow", published and printed by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. It struck me as significant that on the cover was shown a black blank blackboard.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I regret the rather tedious and slight tone of the comments of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), although I am very pleased that by initiating this debate he has given us an opportunity to discuss a very serious matter, and one of real importance in which I know many hon. Members take a real interest. I cannot honestly say, however, that it appeared from what he has said that he is one of those who has taken a particular interest in this subject up to now.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's requests for better treatment of Questions would be for him to attend at Question Time, when he might be able to get an Oral Answer. Some of us took that trouble on the last occasion, but we were disappointed because the hon. Member was not present—

Mr. Webster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did attend Question Time on the last occasion, and I was prevented from doing


so yesterday only by family reasons. The hon. Gentleman may remember that on the previous occasion I was so dissatisfied that I stated that because the Answers to 27 Questions were so unsatisfactory, I proposed to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: What the hon. Gentleman says displays his attitude to what we regard as quite an important matter. I might also say that several of his remarks during the course of an interesting but rather slight speech displayed a quite considerable ignorance of his subject. For example, he spoke of my right hon. Friend's responsibility towards the National Trust, but the National Trust is a private body.
As a member of the executive of the National Trust, I am very conscious of the fact that it is very anxious—no doubt, very properly—to insist upon its completely private nature, and separation from any kind of national interference. It has done a remarkable job and is undertaking very important work in future in connection with the protection of the coastline. It hopes, and I am sure that it is right in so hoping, that it is to have the support and encouragement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources in its efforts to make further headway with the protection of our coastline.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Perhaps this is a point where I might say that the National Trust has taken a great initiative in Cornwall in acquiring much of the coastline and securing covenants to prevent building or unnecessary development in other sections of the coast.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment.

Mr. Webster: As this has been mentioned, may I point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wills) raised this point yesterday and asked what steps are being taken. The answer was one which certainly has not satisfied us on this side of the House.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I can only repeat that, in future, if the hon. Member wishes to follow up his Questions in the House, there is the normal procedure of attending the Chamber, when no doubt he will have the same opportunity as

some of us who took the chance on Monday had.
Another matter which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare raised and which, I feel, displays an ignorance which he shares with his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and, therefore, is perhaps not to be blamed too much, is in connection with National Parks and their administration. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South at Question Time yesterday, and it was again mentioned in the Chamber tonight, that National Parks should be brought under a single planning authority, an attitude with which I thoroughly agree.
I welcome the hon. Member's interest in the subject. The Administration which I happened to be associated with in times past, in initially establishing some of the National Parks, insisted upon single authorities having power over National Parks. For example, the Peak District National Park, the first to be established, was established as a single planning authority. The next authority to come up for consideration was Snowdonia. Although there was strong pressure from Wales, the late Hugh Dalton nevertheless said that he wished there also to establish a single planning authority. But the Government of that day left office before the matter could be completed and the new Minister, from the Conservative Administration, altered the Order and agreed to what is called an advisory committee being established for Snowdonia.
That procedure has been followed in a number of cases since then, in particular, in the Yorkshire Dales. It was always made clear by the Labour Administration that this was not a procedure which we welcomed, although in certain emergency cases we envisaged it under extreme pressure.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: The hon. Member is fond of accusing everybody else of being ignorant. Perhaps I can explain to him some rather elementary facts. The Town and Country Planning Act, the only authority for this, empowers the Minister to require joint planning boards. I hope that the hon. Member, who is a liberal-minded man, will agree that where one has a park which stretches across county boundaries, and the county planning


authorities make clear that a joint planning board of those authorities is not likely to work, there is at least a case for having something that will work rather than forcing things on those authorities.

Mr. Blenkinsop: What I cannot understand, after that intervention, is why the hon. Gentleman should now be arguing that there ought to be a single planning authority when, as I have said, the Administration which he supported—I cannot remember whether he was in the House at the time—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: The Administration which the hon. Gentleman supported insisted upon this advisory procedure being followed.

Mr. Corfield: No.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, this is so. I was in the House at the time and I remember very well the disputes which took place and how long and difficult they were.
I also remember how many of us protested at the time about the Snowdonia Advisory Committee, the Yorkshire Dales Advisory Committee and the other advisory committees which were appointed, against the wishes of the National Parks Commission which, in each case, urged that this procedure be not used. However, the Commission's views were overriden by the Government at the time and the advisory committee procedure was established.
I am delighted that hon. Members opposite are now convinced that this was a wrong course to take and that a single planning authority should be established. I welcome this, and I hope that, when my right hon. Friend introduces legislation, we shall have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Division Lobby, should this be necessary, although I am sure that one would hope that this will not be a matter on which divisions need take place.
My purpose in speaking is mainly to call attention to certain matters on which I hope that my right hon. Friend will take action during the coming weeks and months because of their growing urgency. Unlike some hon. Members opposite, whose sole purpose in initiating these debates seems to be to make general fun of the whole scheme, I take the view that we have here some serious problems and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has been appointed to give special consideration to them.
First, I call attention to the need for a proper survey to be made into the use of land for recreational purposes. I happen to be chairing a study group which has been set up to examine this matter with some care and to report to a conference to be held this autumn on the whole subject of the countryside in the 1970s. In this study group we have come up against the difficulty of lack of knowledge of the demands which are being made, the likely trend of demand for recreational uses and the facilities available to meet them.
Apart from anything else, there is urgent need for a proper study of what statutory and common law powers there are for dealing with recreational facilities in the countryside. I have asked my right hon. Friend to investigate this matter, and I express my gratitude to him for arranging for one member of his staff to sit in with us on the study group so that we can keep in close touch on some of these questions.
This is a serious matter of growing importance. I refer hon. Members to the interesting study made by Michael Dower and printed in the Architect's Journal, a study entitled the "The Fourth Wave—The Challenge of Leisure", carried out on behalf of the Civic Trust, in which Mr. Dower makes clear how serious the whole problem of growing pressure on our land resources now is.
It is not a matter for laughter, but one of real importance, because, in the past, the planners have paid too little attention to the needs of recreation in their broad planning surveys and now we are beginning to realise that we need a great deal more information if the whole countryside is not to be overrun and if those who want to enjoy it are to have the opportunity to do so.
In the United States, very detailed studies have been carried out and a large, seven-volume report has been published for the President on the question of recreation and the countryside. We, of course, are not asking for a report of that character, but we do ask for the Ministry's support in helping us to get information on which effective planning can be carried out. Anyone who doubts the importance of this matter has only to turn to that report and see some of the astonishing figures of the way in which various open air pursuits are increasing over the years and have increased, in particular, during the last decade. Most important of all is the enormous increase in the use of water for recreation. That has advanced quite beyond almost any other recreational facility. This is a matter which deserves, quite rightly, our very close attention.
The other matter I want to call my hon. Friend's attention to is one I have already briefly touched upon—that of the National Parks. I do not want to anticipate future legislation, but rather to appeal to him to do what he can administratively. There are many forms of action that he could take administratively which would help us enormously in the interim. In particular, I hope that he will call the attention of local authorities with responsibility for National Parks to the need for staff appointed to take control of planning of the parks as their whole responsibility and to appoint, where required, additional staff. Sometimes it is possible for a joint appointment to be made with other National Park areas. Such appointments can include forestry officers. There is much in this way that could be done in preparation for the legislation amending the Act.
While I regret that the debate was opened in rather a trivial and lighthearted manner, I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that many of us are seriously concerned with the problems that he is responsible for and are glad that at last we have a Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries with responsibility for them.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has stressed

that these are serious matters and, of course, they are. They are much too serious to be administered in a way we believe to be thoroughly ineffective and inefficient. He is very fond of accusing everybody else of ignorance. There is an old saying that that is the last resort of people with nothing else to say.
However that may be, I would put it to him that he was, in effect, saying that we were wrong, in dealing with joint planning boards and National Parks, to try to reach voluntary agreement between the various local planning authorities and that it is right to risk having an inefficient board running National Parks which cross county boundaries in order to reach the admittedly ideal situation of having a single planning board per park. It was noticeable yesterday at Question Time that although the Minister was careful to say that he would bear this in mind he did not say that he would legislate for it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: rose—

Mr. Corfield: I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman has really had long enough.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether he thinks that local planning authorities who are not prepared to co-operate should be forced to do so, because that is the root of the matter.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that he does not believe in a single authority?

Mr. Corfield: No. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen. My opportunity has been curtailed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). The Parliamentary Secretary will have to blame him if he is left a little short of time, but I want to take the opportunity to refer to some of our debates on this subject.
When we debated the Transfer of Functions Order last week the Minister said that he would like to know where the Opposition stood on this matter. I will do my best to tell him. We recognise, as anybody must, that land is absolutely fundamental to our economy and to our way of life, but we also have the sense to realise that, simply because it is fundamental, the innumerable responsibilities for land cannot be divided neatly


into one little packet and put under one Ministry. That is not possible. However the responsibilities are divided, there will always be overlaps.
This is significant to those of us who know a little about planning. I would be the last to ask the hon. Member for South Shields to read my speeches, because they bore me to tears, and I am sure that they would bore him, but if he will take the trouble to read them, he will see that I have said over and over again that the framework of planning basically is the pattern of communications and the location of industry.
If an attempt is made to devise a planning Ministry, or a land Ministry, to include all these matters and the many other things we can think of, we all know that one has an absolute monstrosity. There are bound to be these divisions and overlapping, but it is essential that, where there is this overlapping, at least the responsibility for the whole of each of the various but recognisable functions should be clear, understandable by the public, and efficient. This is where we attack the Government for this is a set-up which, in our view, cuts right across these basic principles.
When we discussed what was then the Machinery of Government Bill, we were told in specific terms that the right hon. Gentleman was to be responsible for preserving the beauty of the countryside. But when we came to the first Transfer of Function Order the item which was specifically excluded was responsibility for areas of outstanding national beauty outside the National Parks. When we came to the parks themselves, the few provisions which specifically dealt with planning and developments in the parks were excluded for another Ministry.
There is another Order, which we have not yet debated, which provides for water resources to come under the control of the right hon. Gentleman, so that the unfortunate river authorities, which were set up under an Act of a Session or two ago, an Act which was not controversial between the parties, will now have to deal not only with the Ministry of Agriculture on drainage matters, but with the Ministry of Housing on their water undertaking functions

and, in addition, with the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry on matters of conservancy; and, if they are unfortunate enough to straddle the border between the Principality and England, they will also have to deal with the Secretary of State for Wales. In our view, this simply does not make for efficient administration.
There is the same sort of set-up in a number of other things. The other day we had the question of the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities for minerals and we were told that he had responsibility for availability. However, when I asked a Question about the availability of minerals for the construction industries in the London area, I was told that this was a function of the Minister of Public Building and Works. When one of my hon. Friends asked a Question about the supply of minerals for road building, we were told that this was a responsibility of the Minister of Transport. We now learn from a new Order that, if the rock strata happen to cross the boundary between England and Wales, the Secretary of State for Wales will also be brought in.
The result is that in planning the immensely important supplies of sand and gravel and other aggregates for the construction industries there are the Ministry of Public Building and Works, the Ministry of Transport, the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, the Secretary of State for Wales, and, over all, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has to be asked for planning permission to dig the holes before the supplies can be worked. This must be nonsense.
In the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the Committee stage of the then Machinery of Government Bill we were given a long list of things which are nothing more or less than land use planning. This is why—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will get this clear, although I made it clear the other night, I think—we oppose the setting up of this Ministry and what it is doing because it is not being given responsibilities over anything except the Forestry Commission, which is being transferred to it. The other night the right hon. Gentleman went as far as to say that I had said, in referring to planning, that I wished to take it out of


the hands of local government simply because I said that if there was a case for transferring these land functions to him planning, too, should be transferred from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. This is absolute nonsense, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that it is nonsense.
Probably the biggest function of local authorities, certainly in terms of finance, is education, but do we hold up our hands in horror because it is dealt with by the Department of Education and Science and not the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? Of course not. The same applies to highways, another major function of local authority work which come under the Ministry of Transport. It is nonsense for anybody who claims to be intelligent to say that by transferring planning from the hands of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the position of local government is undermined.
When the Labour Party was in power, we had a Ministry of Town and Country Planning. But it had nothing to do with local government, which was administered by the Ministry of Health. Yet it was precisely at that time that the county councils and the county boroughs were made local planning authorities. I hope that we shall not have this sort of nonsense again.
I hope that I have made it clear that our objection to this Ministry is not necessarily its existence. I am prepared to admit that there is a case for rehashing the various land use and economic planning functions. One can make a case for that. But the Government have made the wrong case because they have divided what they call strategic planning, economic planning and land use planning and the availability of minerals from a very vague and non-understandable collection of duties which are part water, part mineral, part National Parks. Nothing is complete and therefore, in our view, nothing is likely to be efficient. It is our duty as an Opposition to draw the country's attention to something which is, if not a complete waste of the country's resources, a very inefficient use of them.

10.18 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I

should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) on having been successful in raising this matter, although I do not think I have any great cause to thank him for the subject matter of his speech. I am perhaps immodest enough also to have wished that I might have been able to detain the House for longer than the 10 or 11 minutes available to me, because I shall not be able to get through all that I should have liked to have said about the powers and functions of the new Ministry. However, I am sure that the House will understand that this is an occasion on which hon. Members have the first say, and I will try to supplement the debate as far as I can with as much information as possible in the limited time.
I am interested that both the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare and Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) seemed to be concerned as to whether the Ministry had sufficient powers. Indeed, one could say that they would like to see us have more powers. I hope very much that when we consider the various transfer of function Orders and any other proposed changes we shall get their support.
I think that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this matter. This is nobody's fault, because this is one of the first opportunities we have had of discussing the functions of the Ministry. I should like to begin from what I consider to be a very basic point. With ever-increasing population pressure in parts of this heavily congested small island and with the obvious need to make the best use of all land and to prevent waste, historians of the future will probably be surprised that it was not until 1965 that there was a national organ for considering land use nationally and for considering all natural resources at a national level. Indeed, my melancholy reflection is how much better it would have been for our countryside and for our development, for the balance between town and country and the prevention of many of the blunders which we have seen in the last few years, had a Ministry of this kind been established even 10 or 20 years ago.
It is true that in 1947 the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, established a land planning Ministry and we took a great step forward, but with its extinction, with the


abolition of compensation proposals which were tied up with the system of town planning and public purchase at that time, and with the repeal of large sections of Lord Silkin's Act, the nation appears to have given up purposeful planning at a national level.
What we have done is to leave the local planning authorities to bear a heavy burden largely unco-ordinated. This is one of the reasons why we have got into chaos with overspill, communications and in many other ways. Indeed, this was the very criticism that we made during the time of the last Administration, that there was not sufficient overall planning, certainly on a national level, since the days of the Silkin Act.
We therefore start from the point that it is a great pity that the problem was not solved before. One of the first responsibilities of my right hon. Friend is to deal with what I might describe—using a kind of mental shorthand, because it is not possible to go into all the details—as the long-term strategic planning which I believe to be essential for the future orderly development of the country and the preservation of the balance of town and country.
I want to refer, not for any vulgar partisan purposes, to two small sections in the public statement—the manifesto—that we put before the electors, because this shows the solution that we had in mind and how we have begun. I emphasise that this is only a beginning. We have been in office only three or four months, not 13 years. This is how we saw the problem. On page 11, dealing with regional planning, the manifesto stated:
Regional planning is also necessary if we are to solve the problems of slum clearance and overcrowding in our major cities; to carry out a vigorous programme for new town and overspill development, including the proposed new town for Central Wales; to clear up the ugly, scarred face of industrial Britain; to save the countryside from needless despoliation.
In a later section of the document—and this will be of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop)—we said that a Labour Government would
End the present parsimony in the supply of public funds for outdoor recreation; develop the national parks; preserve access

to the coast and protect it from pollution and unplanned development.
Those were the principles that we put before the electorate and this is the beginning of the implementation of those pledges.
I should like, first, to refer to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26th November in connection with the setting up of my Ministry. My right hon. Friend said:
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources will participate in the formulation of the national and regional plans for which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State has overall responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 214.]
Therefore, the concept which I very much hope that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare will begin to comprehend—because from his speech tonight he does not appear to have comprehended it—is that within the regional framework which is being established by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Minister will have an extremely important part to play in reflecting national decisions about land policy—that is to say, new towns, industrial expansion, green belts and so on; and to see that the land is generally available for purposes needed by both public and private development, which would cover the kind of personal case to which the hon. Member referred. Although, obviously, I cannot deal with it tonight, I will be glad to have a talk with the hon. Member or to consider the matter further some other time. My right hon. Friend will have an important part to play also in working out in advance by special studies some of the basic factors which we do not know. This is a tremendously important part.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred to the need for some detailed studies about the use of recreation—

Mr. Webster: rose—

Mr. Skeffington: I cannot give way at this stage. I want to be as informative as I can.
As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred to the need for a study of the amount and type of land that is needed for recreation, and the fact that more people have more


leisure, and more opportunities for getting about. Certainly, we shall do what we can to provide this information, and I hope to be in touch with my hon. Friend about it.
In every aspect of this general regional and national problem that we have tackled, we have found a great absence of information. There has been no general mineral survey of this country since 1948. We simply do not know a great deal about our resources, and it is only when a particular concern thinks that there is a chance of profitable exploitation that we get a detailed study.
When we come to land use, we are driven back for most purposes to the Stamp survey made before the war, and there are similar difficulties facing us with regard to water collection and conservation. Not long ago I was sitting next to a distinguished water engineer. I shall not reveal the name of the town, because he gave me this information without expecting it to be made public. It shows that there is a complete lack of data. He told me that his city had been basing its withdrawal of water from the river on data gathered many years ago, which showed the flow of water to be 25 million gallons a day, whereas recently it was found to be only 15 million gallons.
Before one can do anything, one has to get some of the information and some of the facts. Within a regional framework my right hon. Friend is to create these studies. He is to designate land to see that it is available in advance for the development that has to take place. I think that this is an indispensable part of the future orderly development of our country as a whole, in order to deal with the drift from the North to the South, and to develop those parts of the countryside where development is most needed.
Reference has been made to the Land Commission. Obviously, I cannot anticipate the Bill and the White Paper which will be before the House for scrutiny very shortly. I am glad to inform hon. Members of this and to tell the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that this bears very much on the question of the land for a hospital which he wants.
We believe that the Land Commission and the powers to be given to my right hon. Friend as Land Minister are an indispensable instrument in the kind of development which I hope everybody wants to see. Furthermore, the Land Commission and the land powers which my right hon. Friend will secure from the Measure if the House gives it a Second Reading and passes it through its various stages, will, for the first time in a thousand years, bring an element of justice and fair play into the relationship between the owner of the land and those who have to live on it.
There will shortly be an Order before the House dealing with my right hon. Friend's responsibilities for water. I have already said something about the difficulties. My right hon. Friend will be responsible for research into conservation and augmentation of water resources, and indeed the Water Resources Board will report to him. He will appoint the Board, and pay for it. Such estimates as have so far been made of likely future water requirements show that this instrument of gathering the information is vitally necessary. The amount of water that is going to be consumed, not only by individuals but by industry, and indeed by horticulture and agriculture, is staggering, and this will mean national schemes and the mobilisation of various concerns which in the end will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. This will be an important part of his work.
Under a proper scheme of management, we should have just about sufficient water to meet the forseeable needs, but we can do that only if there are proper links and proper arrangements for areas which have a surplus to supply those areas which have not, and I am afraid that these are fairly large areas indeed.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.